PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST OMB Control Number 2060 0490 EPA ICR Number 1996.03 National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Indoor Environments Division B 1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( OMB Control Number 2060 0490; EPA ICR No. 1996.03)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Indoor Environments Division 1 B SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 1( a) Survey Objectives The Indoor Environments Division ( IED) is working to integrate the management of environmental factors with the medical treatment of asthma, particularly among children and lowincome populations. In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of its current outreach efforts, EPA is proposing to conduct a survey of U. S. households to gain information regarding the number of individuals with asthma who have taken steps to improve the quality of their indoor environment as part of their approach to managing the disease, as well as any barriers they may have encountered while attempting to do so. EPA will compare the data gained from this survey to the Agency's established Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 ( GPRA) goal of reducing the number of people with asthma who are exposed to environmental asthma triggers.

Specifically, EPA's goal is that 2.5 million people with asthma, including one million children and 200,000 low income adults, will have taken steps to reduce their exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers by 2005.

EPA expects the following issues to be addressed by the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma:

Issue 1: The extent to which measures to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers are being used by individuals with asthma.

Issue 2: The barriers to implementation, if any, that have been encountered by adults with asthma or parents of children with asthma in attempting to improve their indoor environment. B 2 Issue 3: The proportion of children aged 6 and under, and under that age of 18, who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke and the extent of that exposure.

Issue 4: Ways in which the Agency might better target its outreach efforts to encourage individuals with asthma, or parents of children with asthma, to improve the quality of their indoor environment.

Issue 5: Whether EPA has met its GPRA goal.

1( b) Key Variables The key variables associated with this survey effort include:

$ The level of knowledge possessed by adults with asthma ( and the parents of children with asthma) about indoor environmental asthma triggers.

$ Indoor environmental management measures being taken to avoid, or minimize the impact of, these triggers.

$ Barriers to implementing indoor environmental management measures.

These key variables will be evaluated in terms of the demographic characteristics of the respondents, including age, race or ethnicity, household income, and level of education. The most significant variable, in terms of its potential influence on survey results, is the variety of indoor environmental management measures currently being used by people with asthma. This variable is directly related to the survey's primary objective, which is to determine the extent to which such measures are used by these individuals. The other key variables identified above may influence the likelihood that an asthmatic will implement measures to improve the indoor environment and therefore may also influence survey results.

1( c) Statistical Approach In response to the GPRA, EPA has set a specific, quantitative goal related to reducing the exposure of people with asthma, particularly children and lower income populations, to indoor environmental asthma triggers. The primary objective in conducting the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma is to measure the extent to which individuals with asthma are taking action to manage their exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers. EPA estimates that one in ten individuals in the United States suffers from asthma ( Mannino). Given the size of the potential sample population, EPA does not believe that it is practical to survey every person with asthma in the United States. Consequently, EPA will survey a subset of this group in such a way as to allow the Agency to draw conclusions about the group as a whole from B 3 the responses received. Anecdotal information is not sufficient for this purpose; hence, EPA has chosen a statistical approach for the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma.

The survey asks a series of questions about the use of various measures to manage indoor environmental asthma triggers. An analysis of the results will allow EPA to assess its progress toward the Agency's GPRA goal and evaluate the effectiveness of current outreach efforts. In addition, the survey responses will also provide EPA with an indication of any barriers asthmatics may be experiencing in their attempts to implement environmental management practices. These data will allow the Agency to design outreach materials and activities to assist this group in overcoming obstacles and adopting sound indoor air quality management practices.

EPA will be assisted in this survey effort by an independent contractor who will be responsible for updating the survey response database; identifying the survey sample pool; overseeing the conduct of the telephone survey and capture of survey results; tabulating and analyzing data; and reporting results. The actual survey will be conducted by a firm that specializes in administering telephone surveys to the public about health related topics. This firm will be chosen through a competitive process and will be required to carry out the survey in accordance with the methodology proposed in this ICR.

1( d) Feasibility EPA has reviewed the administrative procedures necessary to conduct the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and has concluded that it is feasible to undertake the survey. EPA has sufficient funding to conduct the survey and will put a contract in place to provide the necessary logistical support. The original survey ( conducted in 2003) was peerreviewed by staff of EPA's IED and EPA Regional offices to ensure that the questions asked will reveal sufficient information to adequately evaluate the implementation of measures to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers and to ensure that the questions do not collect redundant information.

EPA estimates that the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma will take approximately seven to eight months to administer, capture and analyze survey responses, and report its findings. EPA plans to initiate its survey soon after receiving OMB approval and,

therefore, expects to complete the survey well within the period for which this ICR is in effect. B 4 B SURVEY DESIGN 2( a) Target Population and Coverage Because there is no known source of information available to EPA which identifies individuals in the United States with asthma, the Agency is targeting U. S. households with telephones to identify eligible candidates for its survey. Random digit dialing will be used to select residential telephone numbers across the country. The Agency will over sample in those zip codes designated by U. S. Census data to have a higher proportion of low income populations. The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma will be administered to only those households in which the respondent identifies that an individual with asthma resides in the home.

2( b) Sample Design 2( b) i Sampling Frame 87,652 households will comprise the sample frame for the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma. These households will be chosen randomly from all U. S. households with telephones. EPA will ensure that the contractor selected to generate the sample frame and administer the survey has the capability for random digit dialing residential telephones and access to regional data regarding low income populations.

2( b) ii Sample Size Of the 87,652 households in the sample frame, EPA expects to reach 52,591 individuals during the period for which this ICR is in effect. Of these individuals, EPA expects that 15 percent of households will contain an asthmatic, resulting in 7,889 eligible individuals. After responding to several screening questions, adults with asthma and parents of children with asthma will be invited to participate in a longer, more in depth telephone survey. EPA estimates that approximately 74 percent, or 5,837 individuals, will agree to participate in the Agency's survey.

Only one individual per eligible household will be selected for a more in depth survey. If the household contains more than one asthmatic, the following formula will apply:

S If both an adult and a child have asthma, questions will be asked about the child.

S If more than one child in the household has asthma, a random determination will be made as to which child the questions will be asked about. B 5 S If more than one adult in the household has asthma, but there are no asthmatic children in the household, a random determination will be made as to which adult the questions will be asked of.

Because EPA may conduct some or all of this phase of its survey during a second telephone interview, it is likely that a small percentage of eligible participants will be unreachable. In addition, it is likely that passive refusals and terminations will be encountered at this phase. ( See Appendix 2 for a complete discussion of passive refusals and terminations.) Ultimately, EPA expects to obtain completed survey responses from 4,961 individuals.

In selecting the sample size for the survey, the Agency evaluated a number of parameters including confidence levels, precision, and cost. EPA also considered the likely response rates for a survey of this kind. EPA selected a confidence level of 90 percent and a precision rate of three percent for each sample subset ( i. e., children with asthma and low income adults with asthma).

This will result in better than a two percent precision rate for the survey as a whole at the 95 percent confidence level. The selection of these parameters, coupled with the expected response rates, led to the selection of the sample size.

EPA did consider higher and lower precision rates for the sample subsets. However, the Agency believed that a precision rate lower than the three percent selected would not yield sufficient information to draw valid conclusions about the management of indoor environmental asthma triggers among children and low income adults with asthma. On the other hand, EPA determined that the added cost of substantially increasing the sample size, in order to achieve a greater than three percent precision rate among the sample subsets, was not warranted given the survey's ultimate objective. Moreover, the sample size selected will ensure a 95 percent confidence level in the survey's overall results and a 90 percent confidence level for each of the two sample subsets. This was considered sufficient to demonstrate the achievement of EPA's GPRA goal with a high degree of confidence.

2( b) iii Stratification Variables EPA believes that the number of individuals in the United States suffering from asthma is reaching epidemic proportions. Within the affected population, the rate of increase is largest among children and low income adults. Consequently, EPA created two substrata for the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma: children with asthma and low income adults with asthma. Because of the confidentiality associated with medical conditions and treatments,

EPA is unable to access information which would specifically identify children and low income adults with asthma. Thus, the Agency cannot create separate sampling frames for these two 1See Appendix 2 for a full explanation of how response rates were derived.

B 6 substrata. To compensate, EPA has designed the survey to ensure that a sufficient number of households will be sampled to provide enough information about children and low income adults with asthma to draw valid conclusions about these populations. Of the 7,889 eligible respondents,

EPA expects that 25 percent will live with a child with asthma ( Mannino). Based on its best professional judgment, EPA anticipates that the majority of these respondents will participate in the full survey, thus providing sufficient data about children with asthma ( Hemmelgarn). In addition, EPA intends to over sample in communities known to have a high percentage of lowincome households in order to ensure that survey results will yield sufficient information to draw valid conclusions about this population. As a result of this stratification, the precision rate of the overall survey will improve.

2( b) iv Sampling Method To select the survey sample, EPA will employ random digit dialing to obtain a sample of 87,652 publicly listed, residential telephone numbers, over sampling in low income regions throughout the country. EPA will use U. S. Census data to identify first codes then telephone exchanges where a higher number of low income individuals reside.

2( b) v Multi Stage Sampling EPA will conduct the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma in two phases.

The survey will use random digit dialing with a maximum of fourteen call attempts for the initial contact. In the first phase, individual respondents will be screened to identify residents with asthma. EPA estimates screening approximately 52,591 individuals during this phase of the survey1. Successful completion of the screening phase will identify the actual number of eligible respondents. At this time, EPA estimates that approximately 15 percent of U. S. households include at least one person with asthma ( NCHS). Respondents determined to be eligible in the first phase will be asked to participate in the second phase of the survey consisting of a longer,

more in depth telephone survey. EPA estimates that 74 percent of those eligible to participate in the second phase of the survey will agree to do so ( Hornik, et. al.).

Since respondent time or contractor staffing may not allow completion of the second phase immediately after completion of the screening survey, eligible respondents who have completed the screening and have agreed to participate in the full survey may need to be re contacted. The primary obstacle to the response rate for this phase of the survey is the ability to reach eligible B 7 respondents at a convenient time when they are at home. To overcome this, each individual will be asked during the first phase about the best time for future contacts. This will reduce the chance that a respondent who has agreed to participate cannot be contacted. EPA expects to reach 85 percent of those respondents who agreed in the first phase of the survey to participate in the full asthma survey ( Hornik, et. al. and Mishra, et. al.).

2( c) Precision Requirements 2( c) i Precision Targets EPA's survey has been designed to ensure that, at the 95 percent confidence level, its estimate of the number of individuals taking steps to reduce their exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers is within two percentage points of the true value. For each sample subset, the Agency expects to achieve results within three percentage points of the true value at the 90 percent confidence level. EPA feels that these precision rates will be more than adequate to characterize the extent to which the results measured by its survey are true characteristics of our nation's asthmatic population and not a function of the margin of error.

2( c) ii Nonsampling Error EPA expects that the largest nonsampling errors which could potentially bias its survey are associated with eligibility and nonresponse. The eligibility rate will have the greatest impact on the survey sample due to the relatively low rate of incidence ( approximately 10 percent) of asthma in the general population. However, because the survey does not seek to measure data on the indoor environmental management practices of the population as a whole, this factor ( i. e.,

ineligibility to participate) has no effect on the accuracy and precision of survey results.

Another potential source of bias is that eligible respondents may choose not to participate in the survey. This can occur for two reasons. It may be impossible to reach potential respondents. To minimize this possibility, EPA will utilize random digit dialing with a maximum of fourteen call attempts for each phase of the survey. Another reason for nonresponse may be the refusal of potential respondents to participate in the survey. However, health related surveys report a better than average response rate ( Hemmelgarn). In addition, the salesman's " foot in the door"

effect ( Hornik, et al.) suggests that compliance with a small request significantly enhances the likelihood of compliance with a subsequent " target" request. In other words, people who are willing to participate in the screening survey can be expected to participate in the full asthma survey. B 8 With this in mind, EPA estimates that of the 87,652 households which make up the sampling frame, 60 percent, or 52,591, will be contacted successfully and will agree to participate in the screening survey. Of these 52,591 individuals, EPA expects that 15 percent, or 7,889 individuals,

will either have asthma or live with someone who does. Only those individuals who have asthma or live with someone who does are considered to be eligible respondents.

EPA estimates that approximately 74 percent of the 7,889 eligible respondents, or 5,837 individuals will agree to participate in the Agency's survey. The Agency expects to achieve completed surveys for 4,961 of these individuals The overall response rate or the number of survey responses completed vs. the number of eligible households ( 4,961 complete survey responses ÷ 7,889 eligible households) equals 63 percent.

Based on this expected response rate, EPA has selected a sample size large enough to yield the number of responses necessary to achieve a two percent precision rate at the 95 percent confidence level for the overall survey results and a three percent precision rate at the 90 percent confidence level for each substrata.

Since EPA recognizes that an advance letter increases survey response rates, EPA will likely send an advance letter for this survey and will follow a protocol similar to that used for the 2003 survey. EPA expects a strong response to the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma based on several factors. The survey will be conducted by telephone and multiple attempts will be made to reach potential respondents. The literature suggests that surveys collecting information about children's health issues have higher response rates than other types of surveys. Finally, the similar survey conducted in 2003 had higher than expected response rates.

However, the Agency will take additional steps to increase response rates, including:

° Calling at hours when people are likely to be at home ( e. g., after 6: 00 PM).

° Scheduling call back times when it is convenient for people to take the survey. B 9 2( d) Questionnaire Design A discussion of the data elements contained in the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma is included in Section 4( b)( ii) of Part A of the Supporting Statement for this ICR. The survey seeks information about the measures taken by people with asthma ( and parents of children with asthma) to minimize exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.

All of the questions asked are linked to the survey's objective of determining the extent to which indoor environmental management measures are used by these individuals.

For this survey, EPA will make minor revisions to the survey instrument used in the 2003 survey.

Respondents will continue to provide primarily yes/ no responses. In some cases, respondents were given a range of responses in the form of multiple choice questions and were asked to indicate the one which best defined their response. The 2005 survey will continue to seek information on environmental management measures that the Agency considers important in reducing an individual's exposure to known indoor environmental asthma triggers. By using yes/ no and multiple choice questions, the Agency will keep to a minimum the amount of time necessary for the respondent to complete the survey and will ensure consistency in data response and interpretation.

The original survey instrument ( for the 2003 survey) was developed in consultation with staff from EPA's IED, EPA Regional offices, and the National Center for Health Statistics ( NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type of data necessary to measure the Agency's objectives. That survey was also designed with the help of a statistician to ensure the reliability of the data. If necessary, revisions to the 2003 survey instrument will undergo the same peer review.

3   PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS For the 2003 survey instrument, EPA conducted a pretest with nine adult asthmatics or parents of children with asthma. These participants were selected from a list of potential respondents identified by EPA staff and its cooperative partner, the Asthma and Allergy Network/ Mothers of Asthmatics. All nine responded to the pretest by completing both the screening survey and the survey itself through a telephone interview. All respondents found the survey to be easy to understand and complete. In addition, the time it took for each respondent to participate in the survey was not considered to be overly burdensome. Several of the pretest respondents made suggestions regarding the survey's format and content, and EPA made minor adjustments to the survey instrument based on that feedback. EPA also submitted the draft questionnaire to the B 10 NCHS cognitive testing laboratory and made adjustments to the questionnaire based on the feedback received.

Once revisions and updates are made to the original survey instrument, EPA may decide to pretest the new instrument in a similar manner.

4   COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW UP 4( a) Collection Methods EPA has chosen to conduct its survey by telephone interview for three reasons:

° The Agency has no way of targeting the intended respondents ( i. e., people with asthma). Consequently, EPA considered a telephone interview more efficient than distributing a survey by mail, to determine eligibility.

° The survey questions are tailored to the responses of the participant and, therefore,

require an interactive interview which cannot be accomplished using a mail survey.

° Based on statistical literature, EPA expects a higher response rate with a telephone survey than with a mailed survey. A higher response rate decreases the size of the sample frame needed, and the level of follow up required, to achieve the Agency's target precision rates and confidence levels.

Therefore, EPA will administer the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma using telephone interviews.

EPA will seek a firm knowledgeable in environmental health issues, particularly indoor air quality and asthma, to administer the survey. Interviewers will receive training on the intent of the survey, the range of potential responses, and definitions of key terms used or addressed by the survey.

4( b) Survey Response and Follow Up The target response rate for the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma is 63 percent. Actual response rates, for both the screening survey and the survey itself, will be measured using the following formula:

Survey Screening: Response Rate = Number of Responses ÷ Number of Different Telephone Numbers Called B 11 Survey: Response Rate = Number of Responses ÷ Number of Eligible Respondents Identified in the Survey Screening The Agency's contractor will be responsible for preparing and mailing advance letters, tracking survey responses, conducting survey interviews, entering survey results into the program database, maintaining the data in a secured environment, and providing quality assurance/ quality control of all survey activities. The contractor will also be responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of collected information. A computer database will be updated to guide interviewers through the survey and will prompt the interviewer to ask appropriate questions based on the responses received. The interviewers will enter data as the survey is being conducted, and the database will have error checking features to ensure that data are entered correctly and provide sufficient information to interpret results. Following data entry, a final review of survey responses will be performed to identify numerical outliers in individual responses. Outliers will be evaluated, modified within the database where appropriate, or marked as invalid. Those records marked as invalid will be dropped from the response pool.

5   ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS 5( a) Data Preparation Data will be entered into the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma database by EPA contractor staff at the time of the interview. As mentioned in Section 4( b), the database will lead the interviewer and respondent through a series of questions tailored to the responses provided. This design feature will eliminate the possibility for interviewer error in the type and progression of questions asked and will minimize the potential for error due to incomplete responses. The database will incorporate error checking features and will prompt the interviewer during the course of the survey when errors in data entry or completeness are detected. This design feature will reduce the potential for outliers or invalid responses to individual questions.

5( b) Analysis The data obtained through this survey will be aggregated and analyzed for the purpose of evaluating the progress made toward meeting EPA's GPRA goal. Data concerning specific asthma triggers will be correlated to the appropriate indoor environmental management measures.

For example, if a respondent considers molds to be an asthma trigger, that information will be correlated with the questions concerning ways in which to control mold in the home. In this way,

EPA can determine if respondents are taking appropriate actions to minimize or avoid the impact of indoor environmental asthma triggers. Based on the number of respondents who indicate that they are using indoor environmental management measures, EPA will extrapolate a percentage B 12 value as it relates to the asthmatic population as a whole in the United States. By doing so, the Agency can determine its progress towards meeting its GPRA goal.

Data will also be tabulated for each section of the questionnaire based on the number of like responses to each question. In this way, EPA can evaluate trends in terms of common barriers,

control measures most likely to be taken, etc. This information can then be used by EPA to guide its asthma program and the implementation of future outreach initiatives. Data will be compiled in a set of tables similar to the following example:

Table 5.1   Control Method Used for Roaches Asthma Trigger Do Nothing Use Roach Pesticide Spray Use Roach Traps Use Boric Acid Other Cockroaches Each type of analysis will include an estimate of the relative error associated with the data reported.

Nonresponse is unavoidable in any survey. Nonresponse may be a source of bias in the survey estimates if the nonrespondents tend to fall into certain categories. For example, if most nonrespondents live in the Midwest, this may indicate a source of bias. If the response rates are not equal for all sampled units, this may suggest nonresponse bias and the estimates calculated using base weights applied only to the sample respondents may be biased. To evaluate this possibility,

survey subclasses ( cells) will be developed based on geographic region, metropolitan area versus non metropolitan area, and income class. Unit nonresponse rates will be estimated for each cell.

If the unit nonresponse rates differ significantly across the defined cells, then it will be necessary to make adjustments for the nonrespondents when calculating the survey estimates.

To reduce nonresponse bias as much as possible, adjustment factors will be computed independently for each cell. The base weights of respondents in each cell will be adjusted upward,

so that the respondents in each cell will represent both the nonrespondents and the unsampled households in that cell. Although it is not possible to eliminate nonresponse bias entirely, the weight adjustment procedure is expected to reduce nonresponse bias in the survey statistics to an acceptable level.

This approach for analyzing the potential for nonresponse bias is based on the following two references: B 13 ° Survey of Research and Development Funding and Performance by Nonprofit Organizations: 1996 and 1997, Methodology Report, National Science Foundation, 2000. ( http:// www. nsf. gov/ sbe/ srs/ srdfpnpo/ meth9697/ start. htm)

° Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey ( CBECS), Technical and Methodological Information: Nonsampling and Sampling Errors, U. S. Department of Energy, 1999.

( http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ emeu/ cbecs/ tech_ errors_ nonresponse. html)

5( c) Reporting Results The results of the survey will be compiled into a summary document and will be made available to the U. S. Congress during EPA's reporting of its GPRA goals. Additionally, IED will report to EPA's Information Strategies Branch on the results of the survey process and, upon request,

make copies of the survey instrument and this ICR available as a reference for other EPA program offices undertaking large scale survey and program evaluation efforts. EPA will not have direct access to personal identifiers. Raw survey data will be stripped of all personal identifiers by the contractor before being released to the Agency.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60331-60333]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1035; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-235-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded nose landing
gear (NLG) retraction. This proposed AD would require installing a
power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control
interface unit (LGCIU). We are proposing this AD to prevent untimely
unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, which, while on the ground,
could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1035;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-235-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0202, dated October 13, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    After a push back from the gate, an A320 aeroplane was preparing
to initiate taxi, when an uncommanded nose landing gear (NLG)
retraction occurred, causing the nose of the aeroplane to hit the
ground. Investigations revealed that the retraction was caused by a
combination of a power interruption to LGCIUs [landing gear control
interface unit] and an internal hydraulic leak through the landing
gear (LG) selector valve 40GA.
    Deeper investigations have revealed that LGCIU power
interruption appears during engine start at each flight. Even though
no incident has been reported in service, it has been determined
that a non compliance to the safety objective exists when combined
with a dormant single failure of the selector valve seal leaking.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further
incidents of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG which,
while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and
damage to the aeroplane.
    To address the possible hydraulic leak of the LG selector valve,
EASA issued AD 2007-0065, currently at Revision 2.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
installation of a power interruption protection circuit to the LGCIU
and the accomplishment of associated modifications [install new
seals on nose landing gear (NLG)/main landing gear (MLG) door valve
selector and gear valve-selector and for certain airplanes, re-
identification of identification plates].

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes).
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03,
including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ
(corporate jet) airplanes).
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 755 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 48 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost up to $8,220 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be up to $9,286,500, or up to $12,300 per product.

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.
    We are 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

    We 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 that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-1035; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
235-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 19, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121,
A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-
131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-111, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214,
A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-
211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes;
certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers,
except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been
embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded nose landing
gear (NLG) retraction. We are issuing this AD to prevent untimely
unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, which, while on the ground,
could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Modification

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1)
or (g)(2) of this AD: Install a power interruption protection
circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 1 and 2,
dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes other than the Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes); or
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 3, including Appendix
1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet)
airplanes).
    (1) For airplanes that have embodied Airbus modification 38947
specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production
or in service: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this
AD.

(h) Re-Identification of Identification Plates

    For airplanes that have done the installation required by
paragraph (g) of this AD before the effective date of this AD using
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, dated December 4, 2008 (for
airplanes other than the Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes): At
the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD, re-identify the identification plates, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-
1346, Revision 4, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated April 22, 2011
(for airplanes other than the Model A319CJ (corporate jet)
airplanes).

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this AD which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD:
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 1, dated
October 27, 2009 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 2, dated
November 4, 2009 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 3, dated
January 7, 2010 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes).
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, dated December 4, 2008
(for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).
    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 1, dated
August 31, 2009, (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).
    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 2, dated June
16, 2010 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116,

International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0202, dated October 13, 2011, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this
AD, for related information.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 4, including
Appendices 1 and 2, dated April 22, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03,
including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 26, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-24394 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75951-75953]
[DOCID:fr15de08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0497]
RIN 1625-AA01

Special Anchorage Area ``A'', Boston Harbor, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby amends the Boston Inner Harbor Special
Anchorage Area ``A'' at the entrance to Fort Point Channel in Boston
Harbor, Boston, MA at the request of the Boston Harbormaster and the
Boston Harbor Yacht Club. This action will provide additional anchorage
space and provide a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more
than 65 feet in length.

DATES: This rule is effective January 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0497 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0497 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; and the Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District,
408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 20, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Special Anchorage ``A'', Boston Harbor, MA in the
Federal Register (73 FR 49131). We received no letters commenting on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    In 1982, three anchorages were established in response to a request
by the Boston Harbormaster. These three anchorages were designated
Boston Inner Harbor A, Boston Inner Harbor B, and Boston Inner Harbor
C. When they were created, 39 of 43 comments were in favor of the
anchorage establishments. Many of the initial commenters identified
themselves as members of the Boston Harbor Sailing Club, a sailing club
located in close proximity to the proposed anchorage area at that time.
Of the disfavoring groups, the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers expressed some concern about Anchorage Area ``C'' encroaching
on the Fort Point Channel approach. Another commenter complained that
Anchorage Area ``A'', extended southward, interfering with the approach
to Rowes Wharf. The two remaining commenters represented commercial
interests opposed to the Anchorage Areas, especially Anchorage Area
``C''.
    A public hearing was held thereafter in which six commenters voiced
their support for the Anchorage Area. One commenter, however, expressed
concern about the proximity of Anchorage Area ``C'' to the main
shipping channel for Boston Harbor. With an average speed of six (6)
knots, a large vessel transiting the area could damage closely anchored
sailboats. The same commenter also disapproved of the way Anchorage
Area ``C'' encroached on the Fort Point Channel. Another commenter
complained about Anchorage Area ``A'' and the difficult approach that
would be required by a vessel attempting to moor on Rowes Wharf. The
final commenter was concerned about the navigational safety of the Fort
Point Channel approach, which was reduced by Anchorage Area ``C'', and
also agreed with the concerns about the approach to Rowes Wharf.
    At that time, in response to the comments received, the Anchorage
Areas ``A'' and ``C'' were modified in response to reasonable
complaints that were raised by commercial parties. Each of the areas
were plotted on a large scale chart providing for greater accuracy. The
southern boundary of Anchorage Area ``A'' was moved northward to allow
a more favorable approach to Rowes Wharf and the southern boundary of
Anchorage Area ``C'' was relocated northward to open up the approach to
Fort Point Channel. The eastern boundary of Anchorage Area ``C'' was
moved away from the main shipping channel.
    At the same time, administration of the anchorage area was given to
the Harbormaster of the City of Boston pursuant to local ordinances.
The City of Boston was also given charge of installing and maintaining
suitable navigational aids to mark the limits of the anchorage area.
    In 1985, in response to a request by the Boston Harbormaster,
Boston Police Department and the developer of the Rowes Wharf
reconstruction project, a modification to the anchorages was deemed to
be required because redevelopment of the Rowes Wharf area in Boston
would change recreational and commercial vessel traffic patterns in the
Rowes Wharf waterfront area. The presence of the existing Anchorage
Area B would impede the passage of vessels in and out of Rowes Wharf
and would create a navigation safety hazard if vessels were anchored
there. Therefore, this modification removed Anchorages A, B and C and
established Boston Inner Harbor Anchorage Area ``A''.
    Since this time, Boston Harbormasters have permitted the Boston
Harbor Sailing Club to establish moorings in Anchorage Area A. The
Boston Harbor Sailing Club rents the moorings to customers who then
apply to the City of Boston for a permit allowing the mooring. Although
the moorings are relatively small, the associated anchoring systems
range from 1000 to 4000 pounds.
    In addition, when the anchorage was established, the Coast Guard
used the North American Datum 1927 (NAD27) as a plotting system. Since
then, however, the Coast Guard adopted the North American Datum 1983
(NAD83) for its plotting system. This new system changed the coordinate
positions of the anchorages on the charts. In this rulemaking, the
Coast Guard intends to update the position of this anchorage using
NAD83 coordinates.
    When Rowes Wharf was finished, the new wharf had a set of docks
attached to it. The current placement of these docks does not allow
enough of a fairway for vessels to transit between the anchorage area
and the pier facings. Changing the size of the anchorage area will
allow this to occur by changing the positions of the buoys.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments or changes were suggested to the proposed rule. None
have been made.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary, as the creation of the
anchorage will align more efficiently with current traffic patterns.

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 would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational vessels
transiting in the vicinity of the anchorage, the Boston Aquarium,
Boston Harbor ferry vessels and water taxis transiting the local area
as well as those vessels transiting into Anchorage Area ``A''.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast
Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. 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 110

    Anchorage grounds.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.30 by revising paragraph(m) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.30  Boston Harbor, Mass., and adjacent waters.

* * * * *
    (m) Boston Inner Harbor A. (1) The waters of the western side of
Boston Inner Harbor north of the entrance to the Fort point Channel
bound by the following points beginning at latitude 42[deg]21'32'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'50'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]21'33'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'44'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]21'26'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'36'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]21'26'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'53'' W; thence to point of origin. Datum NAD83.
    (2) The area is principally for use by yachts and other
recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors will
be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. The anchoring
of vessels and placing of temporary moorings will be under the
jurisdiction, and at the discretion of the Harbormaster, City of
Boston. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when moored,
will at any time extend beyond the limits of the area.

    Dated: November 25, 2008.
Dale G. Gabel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-29365 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70999-71001]
[DOCID:fr25no05-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R05-OAR-2005-IN-0007; FRL-7999-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving Indiana's April 8, 2005, submittal which
revises existing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits for
sources in Dearborn County, makes minor corrections removing obsolete
rule language, and updates information for sources listed in the rule.
These revisions will not result in an increase in SO2
emissions in Dearborn County because no emission limits were increased.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 24, 2006, unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by December 27, 2005. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2005-IN-0007, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Regional RME, EPA's

electronic public docket and comments system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: You may send written comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
    Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R05-OAR-2005-IN-
0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes 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 RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, 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 RME or 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 instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
the related proposed rule which is published in the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
RME index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the

index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME
or in hard copy at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office. This Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. General Information.
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?
    C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
II. What Is EPA Approving?
III. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action only applies to specific SO2 sources located
in Dearborn County, Indiana.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. The Regional Office has established an electronic public
rulemaking file available for inspection at RME under ID No. R05-OAR-
2005-IN-0007, and a hard copy file which is available for inspection at
the Regional Office. The official public file consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is
available for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the regulations.gov Web site located at http://www.regulations.gov
 where you can find, review, and submit comments on

Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the
Government's legal newspaper, and that are open for comment.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office,
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public
inspection.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket R05-OAR-
2005-IN-0007'' in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    For detailed instructions on submitting public comments and on what
to consider as you prepare your comments see the ADDRESSES section and
the section I General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of the related proposed rule which is published in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register.

II. What Is EPA Approving?

    EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's SO2 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for specified existing stationary sources
located in Dearborn County, Indiana. The SIP revisions amend Title 326
of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), section 7-4-13, by removing
obsolete rule language for the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek
Station. The SIP revision also updates information for other companies
listed in 326 IAC 7-4-13, including adding source identification
numbers. Indiana held public hearings on these revisions on May 5, 2004
and October 6, 2004.

III. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?

    Indiana's SO2 emission limits for Dearborn County are
contained in 326 IAC 7-4-13. The current SO2 emission
limitations in 326 IAC 7-4-13 are based on air quality modeling used by
the State when EPA approved the SIP in 1987. The SIP revision amends
326 IAC 7-4-13, as described below.

A. Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek Station

    The SIP revision removes obsolete rule language that included
interim requirements restricting the SO2 emission limits for
the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek Station, Unit 4. These interim
requirements are no longer necessary, and have been deleted; the rule
limits Unit 4 to an SO2 emission limit of five and twenty-
four hundredths (5.24) pounds per MMBTU since August 1, 1991. This
revision reflects these changes. This SIP revision also adds source
identification number, No. 00002, to the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners
Creek Station.

B. Schenley Distillers, Inc.

    Schenley Distillers, Inc. closed in 1998 and has been removed from
the rule.

C. Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc.

    The revision changes the name from Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc.
to Pernod Ricard USA, Seagram Lawrenceburg Distillery. The company has
removed one boiler listed in the current rule, and renamed the
remaining boiler. This revision reflects this change. The revision also
adds source identification number, No. 00005, to the Pernod Ricard USA,
Seagram Lawrenceburg Distillery.

D. Diamond Thatcher Glass

    The furnaces formerly owned by Diamond Thatcher Glass are owned by
Anchor Glass Container Corporation, and have been renamed as such. This
revision reflects this change. The revision also adds source
identification number, No. 00007, to the Anchor Glass Container
Corporation.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving revisions to 326 IAC 7-4-13, which contains the
SO2 emission limitations for existing stationary sources
located in Dearborn County, Indiana. The SIP revision amends 326 IAC 7-
4-13, by removing obsolete rule language for the Indiana Michigan Power
Tanners Creek Station, and by making minor revisions for other
companies listed in 326 IAC 7-4-13, including adding source
identification numbers.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective January 24,
2006 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by December 27, 2005. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective January 24, 2006.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 24, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, and recordkeeping requirements,
sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 10, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (171) On April 8, 2005, Indiana submitted final adopted revisions
for the Dearborn County sulfur dioxide emission limitations in 326 IAC
7-4-13 as a requested revision to the Indiana state implementation
plan. EPA is approving these revisions, which remove obsolete rule
language for Indiana Michigan Tanners Creek Station and updates
information for other companies listed in the rule.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 7: Sulfur Dioxide Rules, Rule 4: Emission Limitations
and Requirements by County, Section 13: Dearborn County Sulfur Dioxide
Emission Limitations. Filed with the Secretary of State on February 14,
2005, and effective March 16, 2005. Published in the Indiana Register
on April 1, 2005 (28 IR 2021).

[FR Doc. 05-23277 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13121]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM12-10-000]

Solar Energy Industries Association: Notice of Petition for
Rulemaking

    Take notice that on February 16, 2012, Solar Energy Industries
Association, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act,
16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e and Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR
385.207, filed a petition requesting that the Commission initiate a
rulemaking to update its small generator interconnection rules and
procedures \1\ for solar electric generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection
Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,180, order on reh'g, Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,196 (2005) , order on reh'g, Order No. 2006-B, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,221 (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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2012.

    Dated: February 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5230 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10239-10240]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-63-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

February 5, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 24, 2008, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
Docket No. CP08-63-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations
seeking authorization to construct the Fitchburg Expansion Project
(Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. 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 (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, the Project involves replacing approximately 5.15
miles of six-inch pipe with twelve-inch pipe on Tennessee's Line 268-
100, the Fitchburg Lateral (Lateral), in Lunenburg, Worcester County,
Massachusetts. The expansion of the Lateral will allow Tennessee to
provide 12,300 Dth/d of firm transportation service for the
Massachusetts Development Financial Agency (MassDevelopment).
Additionally, Tennessee will install a pig launcher at the beginning of
the Lateral and a pig receiver at the terminus of the Lateral.
Tennessee requests authorization to construct, install, modify, and
operate the proposed facilities in order to expand the capacity on its
pipeline system to provide the requested service to MassDevelopment.
Tennessee's total estimated cost for construction of the Project is
$10.7 million.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Jay
V. Allen, Senior Counsel, 1001 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, at
(713) 420-5589.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA
(18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the
service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically. 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.
    Comment Date: February 26, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3547 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P