[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70205-70207]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0487; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-056-AD;
Amendment 39-17666; AD 2013-23-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters.
This AD requires inspecting the torque value of the bolts that secure
the front and rear main gearbox (MGB) suspension bar attaching
fittings, and re-torqueing the bolts to the proper value if the torque
value is out of tolerance. This AD also requires, if the torque value
is out of tolerance by more than 20 percent, inspecting the bolts,
frames, and related equipment for a crack and repairing or replacing
them if cracked. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on Frame
5295 of Model AS332L2 helicopters. The actions of this AD are intended
to detect the torque loss of the bolts that secure the MGB bar
attaching fittings and to prevent cracks that could lead to failure of
the MGB supporting structure, detachment of the MGB, and loss of
helicopter control.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

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 AD, the foreign authority's AD,
any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 7, 2013, at 78 FR 34288, the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model AS332L2
and EC225LP helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the
torque value of the bolts that secure the front and rear MGB suspension
bar attaching fittings, and re-torqueing the bolts to the proper value
if the torque value is out of tolerance. The NPRM also proposed to
require that if the torque value is out of tolerance by more than 20
percent, inspecting the bolts, frames, and related equipment for a
crack and repairing or replacing them if cracked. The proposed
requirements were intended to detect the torque loss of the bolts that
secure the MGB bar attaching fittings and to prevent cracks that could
lead to failure of the MGB supporting structure, detachment of the MGB,
and loss of helicopter control.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2006-0163 R1, dated December 13,
2007 (AD No. 2006-0163R1), issued by the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Community, to correct an unsafe condition in Model AS 332
L2 and Model EC 225 LP helicopters. According to EASA, analysis of
tightening torques revealed some cases of tightening torque loss, which
can lead to the formation of a crack at the MGB bar attaching fittings.
As a result, EASA AD No. 2006-0163R1 requires checking the bolts
securing the front and rear of the MGB bar attaching fittings for
tightening torque loss and, if the loss is equal to or greater than 20
percent, readjusting the torque and checking the four bolts securing
the MGB bar attaching fitting mounting plate, as well as the frame
3855, for a crack. If there is a crack in at least one of the bolts, AD
No. 2006-0163R1 requires replacing all four bolts. If there is a crack
in frame 3855, AD No. 2006-0163R1 requires suspending all flights and
contacting the manufacturer for corrective action.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 34288, June 7,
2013).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD differs from the EASA AD in that we use the word
``inspect'' to describe actions required by a mechanic versus the word
``check,'' which is how we describe actions allowed by a pilot. We also
require that if you find a crack in a frame or fitting, you repair or
replace the cracked part instead of contacting the manufacturer. Also,
we have different compliance times for the initial inspection for the
tightening

torque of the bolts that secure the MGB attaching fitting.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.00.65,
Revision 0, dated March 28, 2006, for Model AS332L2 helicopters, and
ASB No. 05A002, Revision 1, dated December 6, 2007, for Model EC225LP
helicopters. The ASBs specify inspecting the tightening torque of the
bolts that secure the front and rear of the MGB bar attaching fittings.
If more than a 20 percent tightening torque load loss is discovered,
the ASBs require inspecting the frames 3855 and 5295 for a crack in the
area of the MGB bar attaching fittings. EASA classified these ASBs as
mandatory and issued EASA AD No. 2006-0163 R1 to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S. Registry and
that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we
expect the following costs:
     Inspecting the torque of each bolt that secures the front
and rear MGB attaching fitting requires 1 work-hour and no parts for a
total cost of $85 per helicopter, and $340 for the U.S. fleet.
     Readjusting the torque adds another 0.25 work-hour for a
total cost of about $21 per helicopter.
     Replacing all four nuts and bolts of an attachment fitting
requires 4 work-hours. Parts cost $1,000 for a total cost of $1,340 per
helicopter.
     Replacing the attachment fitting or plate requires 16
work-hours respectively. Parts cost $2,000 respectively for a total
cost of $3,360 to replace each part per helicopter.
     Replacing frames 3855 and 5295 require 40 work-hours
respectively. Parts cost $5,000 to replace each frame for a total cost
of $8,400 per frame per helicopter.

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 helicopters 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;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this 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.

Adoption of 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 (AD):

2013-23-11 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39-17666; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0487; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-056-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332L2
and EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as loss of tightening
torque of a bolt that secures the front and rear main gearbox (MGB)
suspension bar attaching fittings, which can change the loads on the
frames and cause cracking. This condition could lead to failure of
the MGB supporting structure, detachment of the MGB, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 30, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 500 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 825 hours TIS, inspect the tightening torque
of each bolt that secures the front and rear MGB attaching fitting
by using as reference Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) No. 05.00.65, Revision 0, dated March 28, 2006, for the Model
AS332L2 helicopters; and ASB No. 05A002, Revision 1, dated December
6, 2007, for the Model EC225LP helicopters.
    (2) If the loss of tightening torque of a nut is less than or
equal to 20 percent of the minimum tightening torque, before further
flight, readjust the tightening torque.
    (3) If the loss of tightening torque of any nut (front or rear)
is greater than 20 percent of the minimum tightening torque, before
further flight:
    (i) Inspect each bolt and nut that secures the attachment
fitting for a crack, and
    (ii) Inspect for a crack in the attachment area of the
attachment fitting, the attachment plate, and Frame 3855 for the
front fitting and Frame 5295 for the rear fitting.
    (A) If no crack exists, readjust the tightening torque.
    (B) If there is a crack in any nut or bolt, before further
flight, replace all four nuts and bolts of the affected attachment
fitting.
    (C) If there is a crack in the attachment area of the attachment
fitting or the attachment plate, before further flight, replace the
cracked attachment fitting or plate with an airworthy fitting or
plate.
    (D) If there is a crack in Frame 3855 for the front fitting or
Frame 5295 for the rear fitting, before further flight, repair or
replace the frame.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office or certificate holding district office,
before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an
AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0163 R1, dated December 13, 2007.
You may view the EASA AD at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FAA-2013-0487.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6330, Main Rotor
Transmission Mount.

(i) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.65, Revision 0,
dated March 28, 2006.
    (ii) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A002, Revision 1,
dated December 6, 2007.
    (3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD,
contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 5, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27638 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34910]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight
Engineers and Flight Navigators

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. This collection involves FAA Form 8400.3, Application for
an Airman Certificate and/or Rating, (for flight engineer and flight
navigator) and applications for approval of related training courses
that are submitted to FAA for evaluation. The information collection is
necessary to determine applicant eligibility for flight engineer or
flight navigator certificates. This collection is also necessary to
determine training course acceptability for those schools training
flight engineers or navigators.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0007.
    Title: Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators.
    Form Numbers: 8400-3.
    Type of Review: This is a renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collection is necessary to determine
applicant eligibility for flight engineer or flight navigator
certificates. This collection is also necessary to determine training
course acceptability for those schools training flight engineers or
navigators. FAA Form 8400.3, Application for an Airman Certificate and/
or Rating, (for flight engineer and flight navigator) and applications
for approval of related training courses are available online and are
submitted to FAA for evaluation. The information is reviewed to
determine applicant eligibility and compliance with prescribed
provisions of Title 14 CFR part 63, Certification: Flight Crewmembers
Other Than Pilots. Form 8400-3 is multiple-use form also used for
control tower operators and aircraft dispatchers.
    Respondents: 143 certain airmen applicants and training schools.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1.8 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 268.1 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2018.
Karen Shutt
Manager, Performance, Policy, and Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-15631 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75534-75542]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200, 0630, 0632, 0633, 0634, 0635, 0637, 0638, and
0639; FRL-9903-90-OSWER]

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 59

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add eight sites to the NPL, all to
the General Superfund Section. This proposed rule also solicits
additional comments on the Smurfit-Stone Mill site based on additional
references to the site's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation
record being made available to the public.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before February 10, 2014.
    Comments regarding the additional Smurfit-Stone Mill reference
material available for review must be submitted (postmarked) on or
before January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site name                    City/county, state                     Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macmillan Ring Free Oil...............  Norphlet, AR.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0630
Keddy Mill............................  Windham, ME..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0632
Smurfit-Stone Mill....................  Missoula, MT.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200
PCE Southeast Contamination...........  York, NE.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0633

PCE/TCE Northeast Contamination.......  York, NE.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0634
Troy Chem Corp Inc....................  Newark, NJ...............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635
Unimatic Manufacturing Corporation....  Fairfield, NJ............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0637
Wolff-Alport Chemical Company.........  Ridgewood, NY............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0638
Walker Machine Products, Inc..........  Collierville, TN.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0639
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mailcode 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room
3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during
the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number
(see table above). The 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; that means the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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 Docket addresses and
further details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/
Public Comment,'' of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the
headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Additional Comments Being Accepted on the Smurfit-Stone Mill
Site Based on New References Added to the HRS Documentation Record
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866
Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
apply to this proposed rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    1. What is Executive Order 12898?

    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR
Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP
(40 CFR Part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
Section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR Part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS
evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and
air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state.
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. .
. .'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.

    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows
contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic
vitality. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf. The EPA is
improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal
input is solicited. The EPA will be using the Web and where appropriate
more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) Explains the
concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2)
requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if
placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent
nature of the process by informing states that information on their
responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the
EPA's

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
Dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the Regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic
access at www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the Addresses
section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/
566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments
to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
     Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA
30303; 404/562-8799.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
     Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
     Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7335.
     Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S.
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/
312-6484.
     Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/947-4250.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
Regional Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not
equipped to either copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send
them out electronically.
    You may use the Docket at www.regulations.gov to access documents
in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the Addresses
section above). Please note that there are differences between the
Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are
outlined below.

C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters
docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the Documentation Record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the regional
dockets?

    The Regional Dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters Docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note
that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery.
There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are
sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public Docket at www.regulations.gov http://www/epa/goc/edocket as the
EPA receives them

and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system,
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate Docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add eight sites
to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in
this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of
28.50 or above.
    The sites are presented in the table below.
    General Superfund section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State                  Site name               City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR.....................  Macmillan Ring Free Oil  Norphlet.
ME.....................  Keddy Mill.............  Windham.
NE.....................  PCE Southeast            York.
                          Contamination.
NE.....................  PCE/TCE Northeast        York.
                          Contamination.
NJ.....................  Troy Chem Corp Inc.....  Newark.
NJ.....................  Unimatic Manufacturing   Fairfield.
                          Corporation.
NY.....................  Wolff-Alport Chemical    Ridgewood.
                          Company.
TN.....................  Walker Machine           Collierville.
                          Products, Inc..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional Comments Being Accepted on the Smurfit-Stone Mill Site
Based on New References Added to the HRS Documentation Record

    For the Smurfit-Stone Mill site, proposed May 24, 2013 (78 FR
31464), one commenter claimed several documents not available for
review in the docket during the public comment period should have been
available. Specifically, the commenter noted that the Analytical
Results Report (ARR) includes the statement that ``[t]his ARR is
intended to be read in conjunction with the Smurfit-Stone Mill
Preliminary Assessment (PA) (UOS 2011a), the Smurfit-Stone Mill Field
Sampling Plan (FSP) (UOS 2011b), and the Smurfit-Stone Mill Sampling
Activities Report (SAR) (UOS 2011c).'' The ARR (Reference 5 to the HRS
documentation record at proposal) is the report of a large sampling
investigation (the combined Site Inspection/Remedial Investigation or
SI/RA) encompassing the site and vicinity; it serves as the primary
source of site and analytical data supporting the HRS scoring,
equivalent to an Expanded Site Investigation. The commenter also stated
that ``the laboratory analytical reports associated with the ARR were
not available for review . . .''
    The EPA has examined this issue and decided to make several
documents available as references to the HRS documentation record.
These additional references are the FSP for the Combined SI/RA, the
SAR, and the laboratory analytical reports. The PA was available for
review during the comment period; it is reference 48 to the
documentation record at proposal
    The EPA is providing these three additional references for public
review and comment. They are available at the regional office in
Denver. Anyone wishing to comment on information in these references
and the impact this has on the HRS score for the proposed Smurfit-Stone
Mill site should do so within the next 30 calendar days (see DATES
section at the beginning of this notice). Additional comments will not
be accepted on other HRS scoring issues which could have appropriately
been raised during the original comment period and are not based on
information provided in these additional references.
    Please contact Sabrina Forrest at<PHONE_NUMBER> if you are
interested in either arranging a time to review these additional
documents or receiving electronic copies of the documents. Comments
should be submitted pursuant to instructions in the ADDRESSEES section
of this preamble; they may be submitted electronically, by mail or by
express mail. The docket number for this site is EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200
and should be identified in any correspondence/electronic submission.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety or state, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final
rules, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule
does not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means 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. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has the EPA complied with the regulatory flexibility act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before the EPA promulgates a rule
where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating and advising small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs.
Proposal does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial
action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or
determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to
take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202
and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
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, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to states or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
    The EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of
significant interest to state governments. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA
therefore consulted with state officials and/or representatives of
state governments early in the process of developing the rule to permit
them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. All
sites included in this proposed rule were referred to the EPA by states
for listing. For all sites in this rule, the EPA received letters of
support either from the governor or a state official who was delegated
the authority by the governor to speak on their behalf regarding NPL
listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Proposing a site to the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

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

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement
of Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Further,
the agency has concluded that this rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not
require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use,
let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply,
distribution or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to
this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this proposed rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations

because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable
duty upon state, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither
increase nor decrease environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: November 27, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2013-29349 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6728-6730]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02083]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1040]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulations that govern the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge, mile 16.1,
across Goose Creek at Jones Beach, New York, and revising the
regulations that govern the Captree State Parkway Bridge, mile 30.7,
across the State Boat Channel at Captree Island, New York. The Wantagh
State Parkway Bridge was replaced with a fixed bridge and the
drawbridge operation regulations are no longer necessary. The method
for contacting the bridge tender at the Captree State Parkway Bridge
changed several years ago and this action will update the regulations
to reflect the present contact protocol.

DATES: This rule is effective January 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-1040 and are available by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-1040 in the
``keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge that
once required drawbridge operation regulations was replaced with a
fixed span bridge; therefore, these regulations are no longer
applicable and shall be removed. The protocol in the existing
regulations to contact the bridge tender for bridge openings at the
Captree State Parkway Bridge via a telephone located on the bridge pier
is no longer accurate since the telephone was removed many years ago.
This action will update the present protocol to contact the bridge for
openings which is to call the number posed at the bridge. It is
unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking because this
regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on
mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or
value.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a rule that relieves a restriction is not
required to provide the 30 day notice period before its effective date.
This rule removes the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge draw operation
requirements under 33 CFR 117.799(i), thus removing a regulatory
restriction on the public.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The bridge has been replaced with
a fixed span bridge and this rule merely requires an administrative
change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a regulatory
requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary and revise the
contact method at the Captree State Parkway Bridge which has been
obsolete for many years and will simply be updated to reflect the
present protocol.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The drawbridge operation regulations for the Wantagh State Parkway
Bridge at mile 16.1, across Goose Creek, at Jones

Beach, New York, and the Captree State Parkway Bridge are listed at 33
CFR 117.799(i).
    The Wantagh State Parkway Bridge was replaced with a fixed span
structure; therefore, the Coast Guard is removing the Wantagh State
Parkway Bridge from the regulations because they are no longer
necessary. The drawbridge operation regulations for the Captree State
Parkway Bridge will not be removed; however, the contact method will be
changed to calling the number posted at the bridge for bridge openings.
Formerly there was a telephone located at the bridge pier to call the
tender. That phone was removed many years ago.

C. Discussion of Final Rule

    This final rule revises the drawbridge operation regulations listed
at 33 CFR 117.799(i), that govern the operation of the Wantagh State
Parkway Bridge, mile 16.1, across Goose Creek, at Jones Beach, New
York, and the Captree State Parkway Bridge, mile 30.7, across the State
Boat Channel, at Captree Island. The Wantagh State Parkway Bridge was
replaced with a fixed span bridge and as a result, we are revising
paragraph (i), by removing the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge from the
regulations. The regulations for the Captree State Parkway Bridge will
not be removed by this action; however, the contact instructions in the
existing regulation to contact the tender will be revised because the
phone formerly located at the bridge fender to contact the tender was
removed many years ago.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that order because it is an administrative change and does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will have no effect on small entities since this
drawbridge has been removed and replaced with a fixed bridge and the
regulation governing drawbridge operations for this bridge is no longer
necessary. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by
this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

3. 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).

4. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the variations levels
of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

 6. Protest Activities

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

7. Taking of Private Property

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

8. 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.

9. 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 might
disproportionately affect children.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in

complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.799, revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.799  Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Rockaway
Inlet to Shinnecock Canal.

* * * * *
    (i) The draw of the Captree State Parkway Bridge at mile 30.7,
across the State Boat Channel, at Captree Island, shall open on signal
if at least a one half hour advance notice is given by calling the
number posted at the bridge as follows:
    (1) Every other hour on the even hour.
    (2) From April 1 through October 31, on Saturday, Sunday, and
Federal holidays every three hours beginning at 3 a.m.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Daniel B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-02083 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88899]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5944-024]

Moretown Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and
maintain the Moretown No. 8 Hydroelectric Project. The project is
located on the Mad River in Washington County, Vermont. Commission
staff has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
project.
    The FEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the EA 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. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected], or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Maryam Zavareh at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28436 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P