[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 13366]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-48-000]

Tucson Electric Power Company; Notice of Institution of Section
206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On March 1, 2021, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL21-48-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Tucson
Electric Power Company's (Tucson Electric) proposed market-based rates
in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area are unjust and
unreasonable. Tucson Electric Power Company, 174 FERC ] 61,165 (2021).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. Docket No. EL21-48-000,
established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL21-48-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2020), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: March 2, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04751 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87329-87331]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27677]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 241 / Monday, December 18, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2229; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00736-T;
Amendment 39-22617; AD 2023-24-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-
1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a reported interference between
the pilot valve fittings and their mating holes in the rear spar of the
center wing box (CWB). This AD requires replacing the pilot valve
fittings, as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 2, 2024.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 2,
2024.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 1, 2024.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-2229; 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 final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159
Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-
3639; email [email protected]. You may find this material on the
Transport Canada website at tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2229.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-
228-7300; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-2229; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00736-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, 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 final rule 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
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Gabriel
Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39, dated June 6, 2023 (Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-39) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model
BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that an
interference condition was found during airplane manufacturing between
the pilot valve fittings and their mating holes in the rear spar of the
CWB. The interference condition could damage the fitting and result in
the fitting's failure under induced fatigue. Fitting failure could lead
to a failure of its shroud attachment and subsequent fuel leak into the
area

behind the rear spar and into the landing gear bay. Such significant
fuel leak, combined with a potential ignition source such as a failure
of a bleed duct or a failure of wires/connectors in these areas, could
create a fire hazard on the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-2229.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39 specifies procedures for replacing
the pilot valve fittings with redesigned fittings. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    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
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-39 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39 is incorporated by reference in this AD.
This AD requires compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39 in its
entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Service
information required by Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2229
after this AD is published.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    There are currently no domestic operators of these products.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the
forgoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 work-hours x $85 per hour = $2,550.          $7,549          $10,099
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA amends 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:

2023-24-01 Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate
Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP);
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22617; Docket No. FAA-2023-2229;
Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00736-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 2, 2024.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-39, dated June 6, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-
2023-39).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a reported interference between the
pilot valve fittings and their mating holes in the rear spar of the
center wing box. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fitting
failure, which could lead to a failure of its shroud attachment and
subsequent fuel leak into the area behind the rear spar and into the
landing gear bay. Such significant fuel leak, combined with a
potential ignition source such as a failure of a bleed duct or a
failure of wires/connectors in these areas, could create a fire
hazard on the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39.

(h) Exception to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39

    Where Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39 refers to its effective
date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Airbus Canada
Limited Partnership's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For Airbus Canada Limited Partnership service information
identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard,
Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected]; website a220world.airbus.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39, dated June 6, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Transport Canada AD CF-2023-39, contact Transport
Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159
Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-
3639; email [email protected]; website tc.canada.ca/en/
aviation.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 29, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-27677 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69099-69100]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0034; OMB No. 1660-0125]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP).
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0125.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-1, HSGP Investment
Justification; FEMA Form 089-16, OPSG Operations Order Report; FEMA
Form 089-20, OPSG Inventory of Operation Orders.
    Abstract: The HSGP is an important tool among a comprehensive set
of measures to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. DHS/FEMA uses the information to evaluate
applicants' familiarity with the national preparedness architecture and
identify how elements of this architecture have been incorporated into
regional/state/local planning, operations, and investments.
    The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) is a primary funding
mechanism for building and sustaining national preparedness
capabilities. HSGP is comprised of three separate grant programs: the
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), the Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI), and the Operation Stonegarden (OPSG). Together,
these grants fund a range of preparedness activities, including
planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and
management and administration costs.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 322.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 333,502 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $12,719,764. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$2,617,570.

    Dated: November 8, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-27498 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 68110]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-557, OMB Control No. 3235-0618]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 173

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Securities Act Rule 173 (17 CFR 230.173) provides a notice of
registration to investors who purchased securities in a registered
offering under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). A
Rule 173 notice must be provided by each underwriter or dealer to each
investor who purchased securities from the underwriter or dealer. The
Rule 173 notice is not publicly available. We estimate that it takes
approximately 0.0167 hour per response to provide the information
required under Rule 173 and that the information is filed by
approximately 5,338 respondents approximately 43,546 times a year for a
total of 232,448,548 responses. We estimate that the total annual
reporting burden for Rule 173 is 3,881,891 hours (0.0167 hours per
response x 232,448,548 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 22, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23751 Filed 10-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6115-6118]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0049; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation and Amendment of Multiple Air Traffic Service
(ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Bradford, PA, and Wellsville, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend nine VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways, V-33, V-116, V-119, V-126, V-164, V-170, V-265,
V-270, and V-501, in the vicinity of Bradford, PA, and Wellsville, NY.
The VOR Federal airway modifications are necessary due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portions of the Bradford, PA, VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Wellsville, NY, VOR/Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aids (NAVAIDs). The NAVAIDs provide
navigation guidance for portions of the affected airways. These VORs
are being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational
Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0049; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-11 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 would modify the
route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of
air traffic within the National Airspace System.

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-2020-0049; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-11) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://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-2020-0049; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-11.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date 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 comment
closing date. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    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 address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion
of the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME and the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC in
September, 2020. The VOR portion of the Bradford, PA, and Wellsville,
NY, NAVAIDs are candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the
FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice,
``Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational
Network),'' published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR
48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Bradford, PA, and Wellsville, NY,
NAVAIDs are planned for decommissioning, the co-located DME portions of
the NAVAIDs are being retained.
    The ATS route dependencies to the Bradford VOR/DME are VOR Federal
airways V-33, V-116, V-119, V-126, V-170, and V-265. Similarly, the ATS
route dependencies to the Wellsville VORTAC are VOR Federal airways V-
119, V-164, V-270, and V-501.
    With the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Bradford, PA, and Wellsville, NY, NAVAIDs, the remaining ground-based
NAVAID coverage in the areas is insufficient to enable the continuity
of the affected VOR Federal airways. As such, proposed modifications to
the affected VOR Federal airways would result in gaps in the airways.
To overcome the airway gaps, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic
could use adjacent ATS routes, including V-6/30, V-31, V-34, V-35, V-
36, V-147, V-226, and V-252, to circumnavigate the affected area. IFR
traffic could also file point to point through the affected area using
the existing airway fixes that will remain in place, as well as
adjacent NAVAIDs, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors
through the area. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via
the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the
adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.
    Additionally, the Keating VORTAC NAVAID listed in the V-265
description is located in Keating, Pennsylvania. As such, the state
abbreviation for the NAVAID listed in the description should reflect
``PA'' instead of ``NY''. This editorial correction to the V-265
description is also included in this proposed action.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-33, V-
116, V-119, V-126, V-164, V-170, V-265, V-270, and V-501. The planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME and
Wellsville, NY, VORTAC NAVAIDs has made this action necessary. The
proposed VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
    V-33: V-33 currently extends between the Harcum, VA, VORTAC and the
Nottingham, MD, VORTAC; and between the Baltimore, MD, VORTAC and the
Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. The airspace within R-4007A and R-4007B is
excluded. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment overlying the
Bradford, PA, VOR/DME between the Keating, PA, VORTAC and the Buffalo,
NY, VOR/DME. Additional changes to other portions of the airway have
been proposed in a separate NPRM. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-116: V-116 currently extends between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the
Sparta, NJ, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
overlying the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and
the Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing
airway would remain as charted.

    V-119: V-119 currently extends between the Newcombe, KY, VORTAC and
the Rochester, NY, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME and the Wellsville, NY,
VORTAC between the Clarion, PA, VORTAC and the Rochester, NY, VORTAC.
The airway segment between the Clarion, PA, VORTAC and the Geneseo, NY,
VOR/DME would be removed due to the VOR portion of the Bradford VOR/DME
and the Wellsville VORTAC being decommissioned. The airway segment
between the Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME and the Rochester, NY, VORTAC would be
removed since it would leave a 17 nautical mile airway fragment to V-
119 if retained and it overlaps V-147 which will continue to provide
enroute structure between the Geneseo VOR/DME and Rochester VORTAC.
Additional changes to other portions of the airway are being proposed
in a separate NPRM. The unaffected portions of the existing airway
would remain as charted.
    V-126: V-126 currently extends between the intersection of the
Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053[deg] and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297[deg] radials and
the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092[deg] and Fort Wayne, IN,
VORTAC 016[deg] radials; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the
Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
overlying the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and
the Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing
airway would remain as charted.
    V-164: V-164 currently extends between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and
the East Texas, PA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC between the Buffalo, NY,
VOR/DME and the Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-170: V-170 currently extends between the Devils Lake, ND, VOR/DME
and the Worthington, MN, VOR/DME; between the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME
and the Salem, MI, VORTAC; and between the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME and
the intersection of the Andrews, MD, VORTAC 060[deg] and Baltimore, MD,
VORTAC 165[deg] radials. The airspace within restricted area R-5802 is
excluded when the restricted area is active. The FAA proposes to remove
the airway segment overlying the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME between the
Bradford, PA, VOR/DME and the Slate Run, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-265: V-265 currently extends between the intersection of the
Washington, DC, VOR/DME 043[deg] and Westminster, MD, VORTAC 179[deg]
radials and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the
airway segment overlying the Bradford, PA, VORTAC between the Keating,
PA, VORTAC and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME. Additionally, an editorial
correction is included to change the state abbreviation for the Keating
VORTAC listed in the description from ``NY'' to ``PA''. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-270: V-270 currently extends between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the
Boston, MA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
overlying the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC between the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME
and the Elmira, NY, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing
airway would remain as charted.
    V-501: V-501 currently extends between the Martinsburg, WV, VORTAC
and the Philipsburg, PA, VORTAC; and between the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC
and the intersection of the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC 045[deg] and
Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME 091[deg] radials. The FAA proposes to remove the
airway segment overlying the Wellsville, NY, VORTAC between the
Wellsville, NY, VORTAC and the intersection of the Wellsville, NY,
VORTAC 045[deg] and Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME 091[deg] radials. The
unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    All radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in
this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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.
It, therefore: (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 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.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-33 [Amended]

    From Harcum, VA; INT Harcum 003[deg] and Nottingham, MD,
174[deg] radials; to Nottingham. From Baltimore, MD; INT Baltimore
004[deg] and Harrisburg, PA, 147[deg] radials; Harrisburg;
Philipsburg, PA; to Keating, PA. The airspace within R-4007A and R-
4007B is excluded.
* * * * *

V-116 [Amended]

    From Stonyfork, PA; INT Stonyfork 098[deg] and Wilkes-Barre, PA,
310[deg] radials; Wilkes-Barre; INT Wilkes-Barre 084[deg] and
Sparta, NJ, 300[deg] radials; to Sparta.
* * * * *

V-119 [Amended]

    From Newcombe, KY; Henderson, WV; Parkersburg, WV; INT
Parkersburg 067[deg] and Indian Head, PA, 254[deg] radials; Indian
Head; to Clarion, PA.
* * * * *

V-126 [Amended]

    From INT Peotone, IL, 053[deg] and Knox, IN, 297[deg] radials;
INT Knox 297[deg] and Goshen, IN, 270[deg] radials; Goshen; to INT
Goshen 092[deg] and Fort Wayne, IN, 016[deg] radials.
* * * * *

V-164 [Amended]

    From Stonyfork, PA; Williamsport, PA; INT Williamsport 129[deg]
and East Texas, PA, 315[deg] radials; to East Texas.
* * * * *

V-170 [Amended]

    From Devils Lake, ND; INT Devils Lake 187[deg] and Jamestown,
ND, 337[deg] radials; Jamestown; Aberdeen, SD; Sioux Falls, SD; to
Worthington, MN. From Rochester, MN; Nodine, MN; Dells, WI; INT
Dells 097[deg] and Badger, WI, 304[deg] radials; Badger; INT Badger
121[deg] and Pullman, MI, 282[deg] radials; Pullman; to Salem, MI.
From Slate Run, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Ravine, PA; INT Ravine 125[deg]
and Modena, PA, 318[deg] radials; Modena; Dupont, DE; INT Dupont
223[deg] and Andrews, MD, 060[deg] radials; to INT Andrews 060[deg]
and Baltimore, MD, 165[deg] radials. The airspace within R-5802 is
excluded when active.
* * * * *

V-265 [Amended]

    From INT Washington, DC, 043[deg] and Westminster, MD, 179[deg]
radials; Westminster; Harrisburg, PA; Philipsburg, PA; to Keating,
PA.
* * * * *

V-270 [Amended]

    From Erie, PA; to Jamestown, NY. From Elmira, NY; Binghamton,
NY; DeLancey, NY; Chester, MA; INT Chester 091[deg] and Boston, MA,
262[deg] radials; to Boston.
* * * * *

V-501 [Amended]

    From Martinsburg, WV; Hagerstown, MD; St Thomas, PA; to
Philipsburg, PA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2020.
Scott M Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-02015 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11773-11775]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Ic14-5-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725d); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 USC 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-725D (Facilities
Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due May 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC14-5-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability
Standards.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0247.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725D information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission requires the FERC-725D information
collection to implement the statutory provisions of Section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA).\1\ On August 8, 2005, the Electricity
Modernization Act of 2005 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005), was enacted into law.\2\ EPAct 2005 added a new Section 215 to
the FPA, which required a Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable reliability
standards which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once
approved, the reliability standards may be enforced by the ERO subject
to Commission oversight or the Commission can independently enforce
reliability standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 842o.
    \2\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \3\ 16 U.S.C .824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing Section 215 of the FPA. Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization [North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC)] as the ERO. The reliability standards
developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission will apply to
users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System (BPS) as set
forth in each reliability standard.
    On November 15, 2006, NERC filed 20 revised reliability standards
and three new reliability standards for Commission approval. The
Commission addressed revisions to the 20 Reliability Standards in Order
No. 693. The Commission approved the three new reliability standards on
12/27/2007 in Order No. 705 and NERC designated them as follows:

 FAC-010-1 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the
Planning Horizon)
 FAC-011-1 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the
Operations Horizon)
 FAC-014-1 (Establish and Communicate System Operating Limits).
    Subsequently, NERC modified these standards in April of 2008 and
submitted to the Commission for approval. On 3/20/2009 the Commission
approved NERC's modifications to the FAC standards in Order No. 722 and
NERC now designates these standards as FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2, and FAC-
014-2. These three approved FAC reliability standards require planning
authorities and reliability coordinators to establish methodologies to
determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the bulk-power system in
the planning and operation horizons.
    The three reliability standards do not require responsible entities
to file information with the Commission. Nor, with the exception of a
three year self-certification of compliance, do the Reliability
Standards require responsible entities to file information with the ERO
or Regional Entities. However, the Reliability Standards do require
responsible entities to develop and maintain certain information for a
specified period of time, subject to inspection by the ERO or Regional
Entities.
    Reliability standard FAC-010-2 requires the planning authority to
have a documented methodology for use in developing SOLs and must
retain evidence that it issued its SOL methodology to relevant
reliability coordinators, transmission operators and adjacent planning
authorities. Further, each planning authority must self-certify its
compliance to the compliance monitor once every three years.
Reliability standard FAC-011-2 requires similar documentation by the
reliability coordinator. Reliability standard FAC-014-2 requires the
reliability coordinator, planning authority, transmission operator, and
transmission planner to verify compliance through self-certification
submitted to the compliance monitor annually. These entities must also
document that they have developed SOLs consistent with the applicable
SOL methodology and that they have provided SOLs to entities identified
in Requirement 5 of the reliability standard. Further, the planning
authority must maintain a list of multiple contingencies and their
associated stability limits.
    Type of Respondents: Planning authorities, reliability
coordinators, transmission planners, and transmission operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \4\: The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden and cost for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                           FERC-725D--(Mandatory Reliability Standards: FAC (Facilities, Design, Connections, and Maintenance)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Annual
                                                                     number of                          Average        Total annual     Average  annual
                                                        Number of    responses    Total number  of   burden hours    burden hours  &        cost per
                                                       respondents      per          responses        & cost  per     total  annual        respondent
                                                                     respondent                       response\5\        cost\6\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               (1)          (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)             (4)    (3) * (4) = (5)          (5) / (1)
Annual Reporting.....................................          470            1                470           295.7            138,980            $20,992
                                                                                $20,992         $9,866,240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The estimate for cost per response is derived using the following formula: Total Annual Cost (Column 5) / Total Number of Responses (Column 3) =
  Average Cost per Response.
\6\ The total annual cost is derived from salary figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for two positions involved in the reporting and record-
  keeping associated with this collection. These figures include salary (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and other associated benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm):  Manager: $82.36/hour.  Engineer: $59.62/hour. This results in an average hourly wage of
  $70.99. 138,980 hours (total annual burden) * $70.99/hour = $9,866,240.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use

of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.

    Dated: February 21, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04543 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31010-31011]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12627]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9677-5]

Proposed CERCLA Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs;
Piqua Hospital Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs
concerning the Piqua Hospital Site (Site ID Number B5RB) in Piqua, Ohio
with the following settling parties: Hospdela LLC and Dr. Enrique De La
Piedra. The settlement requires the settling parties to pay $20,000 to
the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant
not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a). For 30 days following the date of
publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments
relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments
received and may modify or withdraw its consent to

the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations
which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper or
inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be
available for public inspection at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th floor
Superfund File Room, Chicago, Illinois.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th floor Superfund File Room, Chicago,
Illinois. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from
Deborah Carlson, Associate Regional Counsel, C-14J, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
should reference the Piqua Hospital Site in Piqua, Ohio and EPA Docket
No. V-W-09-C-922 and should be addressed to Deborah Carlson, Associate
Regional Counsel, C-14J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Carlson, Associate Regional
Counsel, C-14J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Authority:  The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601,
et seq.

     Dated: May 11, 2012.
Richard C. Karl,
Director, Superfund Division, Region 5, United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-12627 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4937-4940]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0775; FRL-9625-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Determination of Failure to Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria (HGB) area did not attain the one-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) by its applicable attainment date,
November 15, 2007. This determination is based on three years of
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring
data for the period preceding the applicable attainment deadline.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0775, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 Contact Us Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select ``Air''
before submitting comments.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0775. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Background
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What is the effect of the proposed determination?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to determine that, under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act''), the HGB area failed to attain the NAAQS for one-hour
ozone by its applicable one-hour NAAQS attainment date of November 15,
2007.

II. Background

Regulatory Context

    The Act requires us to establish NAAQS for certain widespread
pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (sections 108 and 109
of the Act). In 1979, we promulgated the revised one-hour ozone
standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8,
1979).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For ease of communication, many reports of ozone
concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x
1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 120 ppb (or between 120 to 124 ppb,
when rounding is considered).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An area is considered to have attained the one-hour ozone standard
if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR section 50.9, based on three
consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data. A

violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring data
show greater than one (1.0) ``expected number'' of exceedances per year
at any site in the area, when averaged over three consecutive calendar
years.\2\ An exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone
concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more information,
please see ``National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for ozone'' (40 CFR 50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour
Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An ``expected number'' of exceedances is a statistical term
that refers to an arithmetic average. An ``expected number'' of
exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances
plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See 40 CFR
part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context, the term
``exceedances'' refers to days (during which the daily maximum
hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible
number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that was violating the one-hour ozone standard,
generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through
1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the severity of
their nonattainment problem, as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or
Extreme.
    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's
classification. Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated
control requirements and had the earliest attainment date, November 15,
1993, while Severe and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent
planning requirements and were provided more time to attain the
standard. Two measures that are triggered if a Severe or Extreme area
fails to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date are
contingency measures [section 172(c)(9)] and a major stationary source
fee provision [sections 182(d)(3) and 185)] (``major source fee
program'' or ``section 185 fee program'').

Designations and Classifications

    The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston,
Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties in Texas. Upon the date
of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the HGB area was classified as
a severe ozone nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone NAAQS. As
noted above, severe and extreme areas are subject to more stringent
planning requirements but were provided more time to attain the ozone
standard. HGB one-hour ozone nonattainment area was classified as
severe 17. As a result the attainment date for the HGB area was
November 15, 2007. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991 and CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 13, 2011, the Sierra Club filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging EPA failed in its
mandatory duties to make a determination of attainment by the
applicable attainment date for certain one hour ozone nonattainment
areas. The Houston/Galveston/Brazoria was one of the nonattainment
areas listed in Sierra Club's complaint. On September 12, 2011, EPA
signed a Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club which, in relevant
part to this rulemaking, committed EPA by January 31, 2012 to sign a
proposed notice to be published in the Federal Register as to whether
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria has attained the 1 hour ozone standard by
its attainment date and by May 31, 2012, to sign a final notice to be
published in the Federal Register determining whether Houston/
Galveston/Brazoria has attained the 1 hour ozone standard by its
attainment date.

Transition From One-Hour Ozone Standard to Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

    In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone
based on an eight-hour average concentration (the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 eight-hour ozone
designations and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of
implementation of the eight-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR
23858 and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 2004).
    Although EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard (effective June
15, 2005), to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act,
eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas remain subject to certain
requirements based on their one-hour ozone classification. Initially,
in our rules to address the transition from the one-hour to the eight-
hour ozone standard, EPA did not include contingency measures or the
section 185 fee program among the measures retained as one-hour ozone
anti-backsliding requirements.\4\ However, on December 23, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
determined that EPA should not have excluded these requirements from
its anti-backsliding requirements. South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) reh'g denied 489 F.3d 1245
(clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the
court granted the petitions for review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Court vacated the provisions that excluded these
requirements. As a result, States must continue to meet the obligations
for one-hour ozone NAAQS contingency measures and, for Severe and
Extreme areas, major source fee programs. EPA has issued a proposed
rule that would remove the vacated provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(e), and
that addresses contingency measures for failure to attain or make
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the one-hour standard.
See 74 FR 2936, January 16, 2009 (proposed rule); 74 FR 7027, February
12, 2009 (notice of public hearing and extension of comment period).

Rationale for Today's Proposed Action

    After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue
to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding
requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with
this responsibility with respect to one-hour anti-backsliding
contingency measures and section 185 fee programs for the HGB area, EPA
proposes to determine that the area failed to attain the one-hour ozone
standard by its applicable attainment date. See CAA section 301(a) and
the relevant portion of section 181(b)(2).

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the one-hour
ozone standard is generally based upon three years of complete \5\,
quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at
established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (``SLAMS'') in the
nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from air monitors operated by state/local agencies in
compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the
AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are

accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies
primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment
status of an area. See 40 CFR section 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, appendix H;
40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D and E. All data are
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with
40 CFR part 50, appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Generally, a ``complete'' data set for determining
attainment of the ozone is one that includes three years of data
with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater
than 90% with no single year less than 75%. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I. There are less stringent data requirements for showing
that a monitor has failed an attainment test and thus has recorded a
violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR section 50.9, the one-hour ozone
standard is attained at a monitoring site when the expected number of
days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above
0.12 parts per million (235 micrograms per cubic meter) is equal to or
less than 1, as determined by 40 CFR part 50, appendix H.\6\ EPA
proposes to determine that the HGB area failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by its applicable attainment date; that is, the number
of expected exceedances at sites in the nonattainment area was greater
than one per year in the period prior to the applicable attainment
date. This proposed determination is based on three years of complete,
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data in
AQS for the 2005-2007 monitoring period for the HGB area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The average number of expected exceedances is determined by
averaging the expected exceedances of the one-hour ozone standard
over a consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50
appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various
monitoring sites in the HGB area by showing the expected exceedances
per year and 3-year expected exceedances averages over the 2005-2007
period. The data summarized in Table 1 below are considered complete
for the purpose of determining if the standard is met. Review of the
data in Table 1 shows that the average number of expected exceedances
for the 2005-2007 period is greater than one for 12 of the ozone
monitoring sites in the HGB area. Furthermore, the NW Harris County
site had more than one expected exceedance in the attainment year,
2007, so the area could not qualify for a 1 year extension to the
attainment date.

                                       Table 1--One-Hour Ozone Data for the HGB One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Expected exceedances by year                  Expected
                          Site name                                  AQS ID      ------------------------------------------------------  exceedances  3-
                                                                                2005              2006              2007           yr average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazoria County..............................................  .................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Manvel.......................................................          480391004               2.1                 3               1.1               2.1
Lake Jackson.................................................          480391016                 0                 0                 0               0.0
Galveston County.............................................  .................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Galveston County Airport.....................................     481670014/1034                 0                 0                 0               0.0
Harris County................................................  .................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Aldine.......................................................          482010024               2.1                 0                 0               0.7
Channelview..................................................          482010026                 2                 2                 1               1.7
NW Harris County.............................................          482010029               2.1                 2                 2               2.0
Wayside......................................................          482010046                 0                 0                 0               0.0
Lang.........................................................          482010047                 0                 0                 0               0.0
Croquet......................................................          482010051               4.1                 1                 0               1.7
Bayland Park.................................................          482010055               6.1               5.1                 0               3.7
Monroe.......................................................          482010062               5.1                 3                 0               2.7
Westhollow...................................................          482010066                 1                 4                 1               2.0
Regional Office..............................................          482010070                 3                 2                 0               1.7
Texas Avenue.................................................          482010075                 0               1.1                 1               0.7
Park Place...................................................          482010416                NA               8.2                 0             * 4.1
Lynchburg....................................................          482011015               6.2                 1                 0               2.4
Mae Drive....................................................          482011034                 0               2.1                 0               0.7
Clinton Drive................................................          482011035                 1                 0                 0               0.3
Deer Park....................................................          482011039               3.1               4.1                 0               2.4
Seabrook.....................................................          482011050               3.1                 2                 1               2.0
Montgomery County............................................  .................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Conroe.......................................................          483390078                 1                 2                 0               1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AQS Quicklook Report, September 26, 2011.
* Two-year average 2006-2007.

IV. What is the effect of the proposed determination?

    After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue
to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding
requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with
this responsibility with respect to one-hour anti-backlsiding
contingency measures and section 185 fee programs for the HGB one hour
ozone area, EPA proposes to determine that the HGB area failed to
attain the one-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date.
Consistent with 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) and the South Coast court decision,
upon revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for an area, EPA is no
longer obligated to determine whether an area has attained the one-hour
NAAQS by its applicable deadline, except insofar as it relates to
effectuating the anti-backsliding requirements that are specifically
retained. EPA's proposed determination here--that the area did not
attain the one-hour ozone standard by the November 15, 2007 deadline
(based on data for 2005-2007) is made pursuant to section (301)(a) and
the relevant portion of section 181(b)(2), and is linked solely to two
required one-hour anti-backsliding measures: i.e., one-hour contingency
measures for failure to attain under section 172(c)(9), and fee
programs under sections 182(d)(3) and 185. A final determination of
failure to attain by the area's 2007 attainment date will not result in
reclassification of the area under the revoked one-hour standard. As a
severe one-hour nonattainment area, the HGB area is not subject to
reclassification for the one-hour standard, and in any event

EPA is no longer required to reclassify any area to a higher
classification for the one-hour ozone NAAQS based upon a determination
that the area failed to attain that NAAQS by its attainment date. 40
CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B).
    The EPA's proposed determination that the area failed to attain the
one-hour ozone standard by its applicable date, if finalized, would
bear on the area's obligations with respect to two one-hour ozone anti-
backsliding requirements whose implementation is triggered by a finding
of failure to attain by the applicable attainment date: section
172(c)(9) contingency measures for failure to attain, and sections
182(d)(3) and 185 major stationary source fee programs.
    With respect to the one-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for
contingency measures, the Texas SIP included contingency measures to
achieve an additional 3 percent reduction in NOX and VOC
emissions in 2008. The contingency measure reductions for 2008 were to
be obtained from on-road and off-road mobile control measures already
being implemented. EPA has previously approved the State's one-hour
ozone attainment demonstration and Rate of Progress plans for the HGB
area which included contingency measures. See: 71 FR 52670, 70 FR 7407,
66 FR 57195, and 66 FR 20750. Thus, the reductions from contingency
measures have already been achieved and therefore a final determination
of failure to attain by the area's one-hour ozone attainment date would
not trigger additional emissions reductions.
    With respect to the one-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for
penalty fees, section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to include provisions
required by section 185. Section 185 requires one-hour ozone SIPs for
severe areas to provide a program requiring each major stationary
source of ozone precursors located in the area to pay fees to the State
if the area has failed to attain by the attainment date. A final
determination of failure to attain by the area's one-hour attainment
date would trigger the one-hour anti-backsliding obligation to
implement the penalty fee program under section 182(d)(3) and 185,
unless that obligation is terminated.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination that this area did not
attain the one-hour ozone standard based on air quality, and does not
impose any requirements beyond those required by statute or regulation.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not a economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it would not apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 24, 2012.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-2199 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63300-63301]
[DOCID:fr30oc06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RP07-26-000]

Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 20, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 17, 2006, Wyoming Interstate Company,
Ltd. (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 2, Second Revised Sheet No. 5B and Third Revised
Sheet No. 72C, to become effective November 17, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of

intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-18126 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P