[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22500-22504]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8920]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0825; FRL-9657-8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Missouri: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule; New Source Review Reform

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to regulation of Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) under Missouri's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program, and to other portions of Missouri's New Source Review (NSR)
program. The GHG-related SIP revisions are designed to align Missouri's
regulations with the GHG emission thresholds established in EPA's ``PSD
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Final Rule,'' which EPA issued by
notice dated June 3, 2010. The other NSR revisions are to the
Construction Permits Required Rule and the Emissions Banking and
Trading Rule and are intended to address changes to the Federal NSR
regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 (the
NSR Reform rules). In today's action, EPA is approving both the GHG (as
it relates to the PSD program) and NSR revisions because the Agency has
determined that these SIP revisions, already adopted by Missouri as
final effective rules, are in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs and NSR.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0825. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning and
Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the GHG
portion of the Missouri SIP, contact Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning
and Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101. Mr. Gonzalez's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and his email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the NSR Reform portion of the Missouri SIP, contact Ms. Amy
Bhesania, Air Planning and Development Branch, Air and Waste Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Ms. Bhesania's telephone number is
(913) 551-7147, and her email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What GHG-related final action is EPA taking in this final rule?
II. What is the background for the GHG-related PSD SIP approval in
this final rule?
III. GHG-Related Final Action
IV. What NSR reform-related final action is EPA taking in this final
rule?
V. What is the background for the NSR reform-related approval in
this final rule?
VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What GHG-related final action is EPA taking in this final rule?

    In a letter dated August 8, 2011, MDNR submitted a request to EPA
to approve revisions to the State's SIP and Title V program to
incorporate recent rule amendments adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission. These adopted rules became effective in the
Missouri Code of State Regulations on August 30, 2011. These amendments
establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Missouri's PSD and Title V
regulations at the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-
frames as those specified by EPA in the ``PSD and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring; Final Rule'' (75 FR 31514), hereinafter referred to as
the ``Tailoring Rule,'' ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less
than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements
for GHGs that they emit. The amendments to the SIP clarify the
applicable thresholds in the Missouri SIP, address the flaw discussed
in the ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30,
2010) (the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''), and incorporate state rule
changes adopted at the state level into the Federally-approved SIP.
    On October 28, 2011, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve
Missouri's SIP revision. The proposal addressed SIP revisions
associated with both the Federal ``tailoring rule'' revisions and ``NSR
reform'' rules. See 76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any public
comments in response to the proposal. In this final rule, pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving these revisions into the
Missouri SIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to address Missouri's
August 8, 2011 request to approve revisions to the Title V program
relating to GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for the GHG-related PSD SIP Approval in this
final rule?

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for this final action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the proposal for this
rulemaking, 76 FR 66882, and in the EPA rulemakings cited in the
proposal. In particular, the background is contained in what we called
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\2\ and in the preambles to the actions
cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. GHG-Related Actions

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct from
one another, establish the overall framework for this final action on
the Missouri SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\3\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \4\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \5\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA,
these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such
regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs
emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.
EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more
specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. In many states, such as Missouri, PSD is implemented through
the SIP. In December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement
the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved
SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP Call
and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\6\
Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do
apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as
100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs
to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the PSD SIP
Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the
affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources
below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on
the ``error correction'' provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \4\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \5\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \6\ Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA made findings of failure to submit in
some states which were unable to submit the required SIP revision by
their deadlines, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, e.g.
``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan
Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR 81874 (December 29,
2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR 82246
(December 30, 2010). Because Missouri's SIP already authorizes
Missouri to regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Missouri is not subject to the SIP
Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Missouri's Actions

    On July 27, 2010, Missouri submitted a letter to EPA, in accordance
with a request to all states from EPA in the proposed Tailoring Rule,
with confirmation that the State of Missouri has the authority to
regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The letter also confirmed Missouri's
intent to amend its air quality rules for the PSD program for GHGs to
match the thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this
final rulemaking for a copy of Missouri's letter.
    In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA
withdrew its approval of Missouri's SIP (among other SIPs) to the
extent that the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions from sources emitting at levels below those set in the
Tailoring Rule.\7\ As a result, Missouri's current approved SIP
provides the State with authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and
above the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and requires new and modified
sources to receive a Federal PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if
they emit or have potential to emit at or above the Tailoring Rule
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability
to GHG sources with the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is
consistent with the SIP provisions that require assurances of adequate
resources, and thereby

addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.
Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) includes as a requirement for
SIP approval that states provide ``necessary assurances that the State
* * * will have adequate personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out
such [SIP].'' In the Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds
for PSD applicability to GHG-emitting sources, in part, because the
states generally did not have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-
emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds,\8\ and no state,
including Missouri, asserted that it did have adequate resources to do
so.\9\ In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected
states, including Missouri, had a flaw in their SIP at the time they
submitted their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the
PSD programs was potentially broader than the resources available to
them under their SIP.\10\ Accordingly, for each affected state,
including Missouri, EPA concluded that EPA's action in approving the
SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA rescinded its
approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources
below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\11\ EPA recommended that states
adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds,
thereby (i) assuring that under state law, only sources at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding
confusion under the Federally approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP
applies only to sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31517.
    \9\ PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR at 82540.
    \10\ Id. at 82542.
    \11\ Id. at 82544.
    \12\ Id. at 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri's August 8, 2011, SIP submission establishes thresholds
for determining which stationary sources and modification projects
become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under
Missouri's PSD program. Specifically, the SIP revision includes
changes--which are already effective in Missouri's Code of State
Regulations (CSR)--revising rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(8)(A) to incorporate
by reference all of the revisions of the Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR
52.21 published in the Tailoring Rule.\13\ These revisions specifically
define the term ``subject to regulation'' for the PSD program and
define ``greenhouse gases (GHGs)'' and ``tpy CO2 equivalent
emissions (CO2e).'' Additionally, the revisions to 10 CSR
10-6.060 specify the methodology for calculating an emissions increase
for GHGs, the applicable thresholds for GHG emissions subject to PSD,
and the schedule for when the applicability thresholds take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The revised rule states that all of the subsections of 40
CFR 52.21, other than subsections (a), (q), (s), and (u),
promulgated as of July 1, 2009, including the revision published at
75 FR 31606-07 (effective August 2, 2010), are incorporated by
reference into 10 CSR 10-6.060(8)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri is currently a SIP-approved State for the PSD program, and
has previously incorporated EPA's 2002 NSR Reform revisions for PSD
into its SIP. See 71 FR 36486 (June 27, 2006).\14\ In that rulemaking,
at the State's request, EPA did not act on the portions of Missouri's
rule which reflected the vacated and remanded provisions in EPA's NSR
Reform rule.\15\ The changes to Missouri's PSD program regulations are
substantively the same as the Federal provisions amended in EPA's
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In sections IV through VI of this final action, EPA is
approving several of Missouri's other revisions to its rules for
incorporation into the Missouri SIP.
    \15\ These portions included provisions relating to pollution
control projects, the ``clean unit'' exemption, and the
recordkeeping requirements for certain sources using the ``actual to
projected actual'' test for applicability of PSD (the ``reasonable
possibility'' provision in section 52.21(r)(6)). See 71 FR 36487 for
a more detailed discussion of EPA's approval of Missouri's NSR
reform rule relating to PSD. We are not acting on those provisions,
including the recordkeeping aspect of the ``reasonable possibility''
provision, in today's action. (See section V of this preamble for a
more detailed discussion of the vacated and remanded provisions.) We
are also not acting on Missouri's rule incorporating EPA's 2007
revision of the definition of ``chemical processing plants'' (the
``Ethanol Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007)) or EPA's 2008
``fugitive emissions rule,'' 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). See
Section IV for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. GHG-Related Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving Missouri's
August 8, 2011 revisions to the Missouri SIP, relating to PSD
requirements for GHG-emitting sources. EPA has made the determination
that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with
the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. The
detailed rationale for this action is set forth in the proposed
rulemaking referenced above, and in this final rule.
    Since EPA is finalizing its approval of Missouri's changes to its
air quality regulations to incorporate appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into Missouri's SIP, then section 52.1323(n)
of 40 CFR part 52, added in EPA's PSD SIP Narrowing Rule to codify the
limitation of its approval of Missouri's PSD SIP to exclude the
applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds, is no longer necessary. In this action, EPA is also
amending section 52.1323(n) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove this
unnecessary regulatory language.

IV. What NSR reform-related final action is EPA taking in this final
rule?

    In this final rule, we are also approving MDNR's request to include
as a revision to Missouri's SIP, amendments to rule 10 CSR 10-6.060
``Construction Permit Required'' and 10 CSR 10-6.410 ``Emission Banking
and Trading.'' These rules were adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission on March 26, 2009, and became effective under
state law on July 30, 2009. The rules were submitted to EPA for
inclusion into the Missouri SIP in a letter dated November 30, 2009.
The submission included comments on the rules made during the State's
adoption process and the State's response to comments. Missouri
submitted these revisions to align its rules with EPA's revisions to
the Federal NSR program (NSR Reform), as it relates to nonattainment
areas in the State. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
approving these SIP revisions with several exceptions. First, in
today's final action, EPA is not taking action on Missouri's submittal
of changes to the applicability of the PSD program to exclude ethanol
production facilities from the definition of ``chemical processing
plants'' (the Ethanol Rule) (72 FR 24060, May 1, 2007). See letter from
James L. Kavanaugh, Director, MDNR, to EPA, April 10, 2008. Second,
because Missouri has not adopted EPA's ``Fugitive Emissions Rule'' (73
FR 77882, Dec. 19, 2008), as it relates to NSR in nonattainment areas,
today's action also does not address the Fugitive Emissions Rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The November 30, 2009 submittal from MDNR also proposed
revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.350 ``Emission Limitations and Emissions
Trading of Oxides of Nitrogen'' and 10 CSR 10-6.360 ``Control of
NOX Emissions from Electric Generating Units and Non-
Electric Generating Boilers.'' In a letter dated April 20, 2011,
Missouri withdrew this submission of revisions to these two rules,
and therefore today's action does not include them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 28, 2011, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve
Missouri's SIP revision. The proposal addressed SIP revisions
associated with both the Federal ``tailoring rule'' revisions and ``NSR
reform'' rules. See 76 FR 66882. EPA did not receive any public
comments in response to the proposal. Therefore, in this final rule,
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,

EPA is approving these revisions into the Missouri SIP.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to address
Missouri's August 8, 2011 request to approve revisions to the Title
V program relating to GHGs in a subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is the background for the NSR reform-related approval in this
final rule?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and
Nonattainment NSR programs (``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR); Baseline Emissions
Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide
Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects'').
On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final
action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule
changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the
definition of ``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue regarding
PALs. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions
are collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.''
    In brief, the 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of
the NSR programs (concerning both PSD and nonattainment NSR).\18\ The
2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for determining baseline actual
emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for
determining whether a major modification has occurred; (3) allow major
stationary sources to comply with plantwide applicability limits (PALs)
to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the
requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability
provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5)
exclude pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of
``physical change or change in the method of operation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For more background information about the 2002 NSR Reform
rules, see 67 FR 80186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective,
industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous
aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980
NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In
summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules pertaining
to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules regarding
recordkeeping, e.g. 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let
stand the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules.
    On February 25, 2005, Missouri submitted a request to include EPA's
2002 NSR Reform Rules in attainment and unclassifiable areas in to the
SIP, and EPA approved these revisions through a final rule published on
June 27, 2006 (71 FR 36486).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As stated in section II above, EPA did not act on the
portions of Missouri's rule which related to the vacated and
remanded provisions of the EPA rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. NSR Reform-Related Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving revisions to
Missouri's regulations 10 CSR 10-6.060 and 10 CSR 10-6.410, as
submitted on November 30, 2009, for inclusion in the Missouri SIP. EPA
has determined that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations implementing the NSR
program, including NSR Reform. The detailed rationale for this action
is set forth in the proposal for this rule, 76 FR 66882, and in this
notice.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves the State's law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the
State's law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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 June 15, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source
review, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    40 CFR part 52 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 AA--Missouri

0
2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by revising the entries for 10 CSR 10-
6.060 (Construction Permits Required) and 10 CSR 10-6.410 (Emissions
Banking and Trading) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          State
 Missouri citation        Title         effective   EPA approval date                 Explanation
                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.060..........  Construction           8/30/11  4/16/12 [insert    This revision incorporates by reference
                     Permits Required.               FR page number     elements of EPA's NSR reform rule
                                                     where the          published December 31, 2002. Provisions
                                                     document begins].  of the incorporated reform rule relating
                                                                        to the Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution
                                                                        Control Projects, and exemption from
                                                                        recordkeeping provisions for certain
                                                                        sources using the actual-to-projected-
                                                                        actual emissions projections test are
                                                                        not SIP approved. In addition, we are
                                                                        not approving Missouri's rule
                                                                        incorporating EPA's 2007 revision of the
                                                                        definition of ``chemical processing
                                                                        plants'' (the ``Ethanol Rule,'' 72 FR
                                                                        24060 (May 1, 2007) or EPA's 2008
                                                                        ``fugitive emissions rule,'' 73 FR 77882
                                                                        (December 19, 2008).
                                                                       Otherwise, this revision also
                                                                        incorporates by reference the other
                                                                        provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect
                                                                        on August 2, 2010, which supersedes any
                                                                        conflicting provisions in the Missouri
                                                                        rule. Section 9, pertaining to hazardous
                                                                        air pollutants, is not SIP approved.
10-6.410..........  Emissions Banking      7/30/09  4/16/12 [insert
                     and Trading.                    FR page number
                                                     where the
                                                     document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  52.1323  [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.1323 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (n).

[FR Doc. 2012-8920 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30047]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Michael J Smith Field, Beaufort, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
Beaufort-Morehead City Airport Authority to waive the requirement that
approximately 7.5 acres of airport property, located at the Michael J
Smith Field, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Ken Lohr, Chairman, Beaufort-Morehead City
Airport Authority at the following address: Beaufort-Morehead City
Airport Authority, P.O. Box 875, Beaufort, NC 28516-0875.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-
260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Beaufort-Morehead City Airport Authority to release approximately 7.5
acres of airport property at the Michael J Smith Field. The property
consists of one parcel located on the north side of West Beaufort Road.
The proposed use of this land is for the realignment of US 70 and is
compatible with airport operations. Any person may inspect the request
in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the
request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at
the Michael J Smith Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on May 8, 2012.
Larry F. Clark,
Acting Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-12053 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: June 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 35314]
[DOCID:fr19jn06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of America's Sports Voice, Inc. (n/k/a Milagro
Holdings, Inc.), Dawcin International Corp., and Trans Continental
Entertainment Group, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 15, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
America's Sports Voice, Inc. (n/k/a Milagro Holdings, Inc.) because it
has not filed a periodic report since the period ended June 30, 2001.
    It also appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that
there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the
securities of Dawcin International Corp. because it has not filed a
periodic report since the period ended March 31, 1997.
    It also appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that
there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the
securities of Trans Continental Entertainment Group, Inc. because it
has not filed a periodic report since the period ended January 31,
2003.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered that, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, trading in the above-listed companies
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.d.t. on June 15, 2006,
through 11:59 p.m. e.d.t. on June 28, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-5531 Filed 6-15-06; 11:24 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25004-25005]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0012]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; American
Trucking Associations, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the American Trucking Associations, Inc.
(ATA) has applied for an exemption from the Federal hours-of-service
(HOS) regulations that prohibit commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers
from driving a CMV if more than 8 consecutive hours have passed since
the driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of 30 minutes or
more. ATA is requesting the exemption on behalf of all motor carriers
that transport hazardous materials (HM) shipments requiring security
plans under regulations of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). These plans normally require a driver to
``attend'' such cargo while the CMV is stopped, which would be an on-
duty activity. This forces drivers to choose between FMCSA's off-duty
rest break requirement and compliance with PHMSA's security plans, many
of include an on-duty ``attendance'' requirement. ATA proposes that
drivers transporting HM for motor carriers required to file security
plans be allowed to count their on-duty ``attendance'' time for any HM
cargo toward the required 30-minute rest break requirement, provided
the drivers perform no other on-duty activity. The exemption would thus
resemble Section 397.7, which requires drivers transporting certain
explosives constantly to ``attend'' their load, while Section 395.1(q)
allows them to count ``attendance'' time toward their rest break. FMCSA
requests public comments on the request for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2015-0012 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time and in the box
labeled ``SEARCH for'' enter FMCSA-2015-0012 and click on the tab
labeled ``SEARCH.''
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Under 49 CFR 172.800-804, administered by PHMSA, carriers of
certain security-sensitive HM must develop special plans that account
for personnel, cargo, and en route security. Although not mandatory,
``constant attendance'' of the cargo is included by most carriers in
their security plans.
    ``Constant attendance'' on a CMV is considered ``on duty time,'' as
defined in 49 CFR 395.2. However, CMV drivers are subject to rest break
requirements in Section 395.3(a)(3)(ii), which prohibit them from
driving a CMV if more than 8 consecutive hours have passed since the
driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of 30 minutes or more.
Drivers who are required by their carrier's HM security plan to
maintain constant on-duty attendance on the CMV whenever stopped,
cannot also comply with the off-duty rest break requirement of Section
395.3(a)(3)(ii).
    Section 397.5 requires drivers transporting cargo classified as
Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 (explosive) materials to attend the cargo at
all times. There is no regulatory conflict for these drivers, however,
because Section 395.1(q) specifically allows them to count up to 30
minutes of their on-duty attendance time toward the rest break
requirement, provided that they perform no other on-duty activities
during that period.
    ATA initially asked FMCSA ``to clarify that drivers can exercise
constant attendance over a vehicle without having to remain on duty.''
After discussion with Agency officials, however, ATA agreed that its
request should be treated as an exemption application. All
correspondence on this issue has been placed in the docket listed at
the beginning of this notice. The exemption request has been filed on
behalf of all carriers whose drivers transport HM loads requiring
placarding under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or select agents and
toxins identified in Section 172.800(b)(13) that do not require
placarding, and who have filed security plans requiring constant
attendance of HM in accordance with Sections 172.800-804. The HM load
being transported would not itself have to come under the provisions of
Sections 172.800-804, because it would be too difficult for drivers and
enforcement officials to determine at roadside whether Sections
182.800-804 applied to any individual load. Only drivers operating
under the authority of carriers that have filed security plans under
Sections 172.800-804 and who are transporting loads that require
placarding or contain a select agent or toxin identified in Section
172.800(b)(13) would be eligible for this exemption. Drivers operating
under this exemption could count up to 30 minutes of their on-duty
attendance time toward a required rest break, provided that they
perform no other on-duty activities during the rest-break period.
    The driver would be required to annotate the record of duty status
(``log book'') to show the time claimed as a rest break was on-duty
time because he/she was required to follow the carrier's security plan,
which in turn required ``attendance'' on an HM load.
    It should be noted that a carrier or driver would have no reason to
claim to be operating under this exemption unless it was necessary to
do so to avoid a regulatory conflict. While under the exemption, if
granted, the driver's rest-break time would be on-duty and count
against the 60 or 70-hour on-duty limit. A rest break taken without
using this exemption would be off-duty and not be included in the 60/70
hour limit.
    ATA contends that allowing these drivers to count up to 30 minutes
of their attendance time toward a required rest break, provided they
perform no other on-duty activities during the break, would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation because the attendance
duty would be unlikely to contribute to driver fatigue. ATA further
contends that allowing these drivers to count up to 30 minutes of their
attendance time toward a required rest break would provide security
benefits superior to the current practices.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on ATA's application for an exemption from the
rest-break requirements of Section 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The Agency will
consider all comments received by close of business on June 1, 2015.
    Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the
location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. To the
extent practicable, the Agency will consider comments received in the
public docket after the closing date of the comment period.

     Issued on: April 22, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-10200 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/18/2007 06:53 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

USDA comments on primary and secondary revised sections

Hi Lydia,

Some passbacks from USDA on primary and secondary.

Cheers,

Rob

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: July 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35124-35126]
[DOCID:fr20jy09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0632]

Safety Zones: Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Detroit Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for annual
fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone from 9 p.m. on
July 3, 2009 through 11 p.m. on July 25, 2009. This action is necessary
and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks events.
This rule will establish restrictions upon, and control movement of,
vessels in a specified area immediately prior to,

during, and immediately after fireworks events. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without
permission of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR part 165 will be enforced as listed
below under the subject heading SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Joseph Snowden, Prevention, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207;
(313)-568-9580, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the following
safety zones which were published in the August 8, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register. (73 FR 46194):
    Section 165.941(a)(22) Catawba Island Club Fireworks, Catawba
Island, OH. This regulation is effective and will be enforced from 9
p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 3, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(43) Lexington Independence Festival Fireworks,
Lexington, MI. This regulation will be effective from 9:30 p.m. on July
3, 2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced
from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2009. In the event of
inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(31) Safety zone; Lake Erie Metropark Fireworks,
Gibraltar, MI. This regulation is effective and will be enforced from
10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 3, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(37) Safety zone; Caseville Fireworks, Caseville,
MI. This regulation is effective from 10 p.m. on July 3, 2009 to 11
p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m.
until 11 p.m. on July 3, 2009. In the event of inclement weather, this
regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(32) Safety zone; City of St. Clair Fireworks,
St. Clair, MI. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m. July 4,
2009 to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from
10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of inclement
weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on
July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(5) Alpena Fireworks, Alpena, MI. This regulation
is effective from 10 p.m. on July 4, 2009 to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
This regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4,
2009. In the event of inclement weather, this regulation will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(47) Safety zone; Belle Maer Harbor 4th of July
Fireworks, Harrison Township, MI. This regulation will be effective
from 10 p.m. July 4, 2009 to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation
will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the
event of inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10
p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(42) Safety zone; Grosse Pointe Yacht Club 4th of
July Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI. This regulation will be
effective from 10 p.m. July 4, 2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This
regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4,
2009. In the event of inclement weather, this regulation will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(34) Safety zone; Port Austin Fireworks, Port
Austin, MI. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m. July 4, 2009
to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from 10
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of inclement
weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(8) Safety zone; Harrisville Fireworks,
Harrisville, MI. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m. July 4,
2009 to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from
10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of inclement
weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on
July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(38) Safety zone; Algonac Pickerel Tournament
Fireworks, Algonac, MI. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m.
July 4, 2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of
inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until
10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(36) Safety zone; Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks,
Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m.
July 4, 2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of
inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until
10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(23) Safety zone; Red, White and Blues Bang
Fireworks, Huron, OH. This regulation is effective and will be enforced
from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(46) Safety zone; Trenton Fireworks, Trenton, MI.
This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m. July 4, 2009 to 11 p.m.
on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11
p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of inclement weather, this
regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(45) Safety zone; Grosse Isle Yacht Club
Fireworks, Grosse Isle, MI. This regulation will be effective from 9
p.m. July 4, 2009 to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be
enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of
inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 9 p.m. until
11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(3) Safety zone; Au Gres City Fireworks, Au Gres,
MI. This regulation is effective and will be enforced from 10 p.m.
until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(21) Safety zone; Lakeside July 4th Fireworks,
Lakeside, OH. This regulation will be effective from 9:30 p.m. July 4,
2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be enforced
from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of
inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(6) Safety zone; Put-in-Bay Fourth of July
Fireworks, Put-in-Bay, OH. This regulation will be effective from 10
p.m. July 4, 2009 to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event of
inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until
11 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(17) Safety zone; Luna Pier Fireworks, Luna Pier,
MI. This regulation is effective and will be enforced from 10 p.m.
until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(48) Safety zone; Tawas City 4th of July
Fireworks, Tawas, MI. This regulation will be effective from 9:30 p.m.
July 4, 2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be
enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event
of inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(24) Safety zone; Ecorse Water Festival
Fireworks, Ecorse, MI. This regulation will be effective from 9:30 p.m.
July 4, 2009 to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009. This regulation will be
enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. In the event
of inclement weather, this regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(24) Safety zone; Huron Riverfest Fireworks,
Huron, OH. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m. July 10, 2009
to 11 p.m. on July 11, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from 10
p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 10,

2009. In the event of inclement weather, this regulation will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 11, 2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(9) Safety zone; Harbor Beach Fireworks, Harbor
Beach, MI. This regulation will be effective from 10 p.m. July 11, 2009
to 11 p.m. on July 12, 2009. This regulation will be enforced from 10
p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 11, 2009. In the event of inclement weather,
this regulation will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 12,
2009.
    Section 165.941(a)(10) Safety zone; Trenton Rotary Roar on the
River Fireworks, Trenton, MI. This regulation is effective and will be
enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 25, 2009.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.20, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit. Requests must be made
in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will
be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The
Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the
public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.20 and 5 U.S.C.
552(a). If the District Commander, Captain of the Port, or other
official authorized to do so, determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she
may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to
enter the safety zone.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
F.M. Midgette,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. E9-17100 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 75159-75161]
[DOCID:fr10de08-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59054; File Nos. SR-OCC-2008-13 and SR-OCC-2008-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Changes Relating to iShares COMEX Gold Trust and iShares Silver
Trust Shares

December 4, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 23, 2008, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-OCC-2008-13 and
SR-OCC-2008-14 as described in Items I and II below, which items have
been prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing this
notice and order to solicit comments from interested persons and to
grant accelerated approval to the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The proposed rule changes would remove any potential question on
the jurisdictional status of options or security futures on iShares
COMEX Gold Trust shares and iShares Silver Trust shares by amending the
interpretation following the definition of ``fund share'' in Article I,
Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule changes. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to remove any potential
question on the jurisdictional status of options or security futures on
iShares COMEX Gold Trust shares and iShares Silver Trust shares by
amending the interpretation following the definition of ``fund share''
in Article I, Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws. On May 30, 2008, the
Commission approved rule filing SR-OCC-2008-07, which added this
interpretation with respect to the treatment and clearing of options
and security futures on SPDR Gold Shares.\3\ Under the proposed rule
changes, OCC would also (1) clear and treat as securities options any
option contracts on iShares COMEX Gold shares and iShares Silver Trust
shares that are traded on securities exchanges and (2) clear and treat
as security futures any futures contracts on iShares COMEX Gold shares
and iShares Silver Trust shares.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57895 (May 30, 2008), 73
FR 32066 (June 5, 2008).
    \4\ The exact language of the interpretation can be found at
http://www.optionsclearing.com/ publications/rules/proposed_
changes/sr_occ_08_13.pdf and http://www.optionsclearing.com/
publications/rules/proposed_changes/sr_occ_08_14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its capacity as a ``derivatives clearing organization''
registered as such with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC''), OCC also filed the proposed rule changes with the CFTC for
prior approval by the CFTC pursuant to provisions of the Commodity
Exchange Act (``CEA'') in order to foreclose any potential liability
under the CEA based on an argument that the clearing by OCC of such
options as securities options or that the clearing

of such futures as security futures constitutes a violation of the CEA.
The products for which approval is requested are essentially the same
as the options and security futures on SPDR Gold Shares that OCC
currently clears pursuant to the rule change referred to above and an
exemption issued by the CFTC.\5\ OCC believes that this filing raises
no new regulatory or policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 3. CFTC Order Exempting the Trading and Clearing
of Certain Products Related to SPDR Gold Trust Shares, 73 FR 31981
(June 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed interpretation of its By-Laws is
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\6\ because it is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of transactions in securities options and security
futures, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
the clearance and settlement of such transactions, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such transactions, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. It
accomplishes this purpose by reducing the likelihood of a dispute as to
the Commission's jurisdiction, or shared jurisdiction in the case of
security futures, over derivatives based on iShares COMEX Gold Trust
shares and iShares Silver Trust shares. The proposed rule changes are
not inconsistent with the By-Laws and Rules of OCC, including any
proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q- 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would impose
any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule changes, and none have been received.

III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Changes

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\7\ By
amending its By-Laws to help clarify that options and security futures
on iShares COMEX Gold Trust shares and iShares Silver Trust shares will
be treated and cleared as securities options or security futures, OCC's
proposed rule changes should help clarify the jurisdictional status of
such contracts and accordingly should help to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. In
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between
the CFTC and the Commission on March 11, 2008, and in particular the
addendum thereto concerning Principles Governing the Review of Novel
Derivative Products, the Commission believes that novel derivative
products that implicate areas of overlapping regulatory concern should
be permitted to trade in either or both a CFTC- or Commission-regulated
environment, in a manner consistent with laws and regulations
(including the appropriate use of all available exemptive and
interpretive authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\8\ for approving the proposed rule changes prior
to the thirtieth day after the publication of notice in the Federal
Register. The proposed rule changes are similar to the proposal
previously approved by the Commission regarding the treatment and
clearing of options and security futures on SPDR Gold Shares.\9\
Therefore, the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule
changes raise any new regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any
of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Numbers SR-OCC-2008-13 and SR-OCC-2008-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-OCC-2008-13 and SR-OCC-
2008-14. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-
mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments
more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post
all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/publications/rules/proposed_
changes/sr_occ_08_13.pdf and http://www.optionsclearing.com/
publications/rules/proposed_changes/sr_occ_08_14.pdf. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-OCC-2008-13 and SR-OCC-
2008-14 and should be submitted on or before December 31, 2008.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-OCC-2008-13 and SR-OCC-
2008-14) be and hereby are approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29156 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17455-17457]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0168; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-208-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company 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 The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by failure of the anchor attachment on the occupant restraint
system on the standard attendant seat due to an undersized attachment
fitting. This proposed AD would require replacing the existing
restraint attachment fitting on the standard attendant seat with a new,
improved attachment fitting. We are proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the restraint attachment fitting and consequent detachment
of the attendant seat during an emergency landing, which could cause
injury to passengers and crew and could impede a rapid evacuation.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
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 Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket Receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric M. Brown, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0168;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-208-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 because of 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

    We received a report of failure of the anchor attachment on the
occupant restraint system on the standard attendant seat due to an
undersized attachment fitting. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in failure of the restraint attachment fitting and consequent
detachment of the attendant seat during an emergency landing, which
would cause injury to passengers and crew and could impede a rapid
evacuation.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250027-00, Issue
001, dated January 14, 2014. We have also reviewed UTC Aerospace
Systems Service Bulletin 2787-25-006, Revision B, dated July 10, 2013.
The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing
restraint attachment fitting to seat joint fitting on the standard
attendant's seat with a new, improved attachment fitting.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 airplane of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.......................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  $0              $85              $85
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 this proposed
regulation:
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0168; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-208-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 12, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any
category, with Goodrich Model 2787 seat assemblies installed.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by failure of the anchor attachment on the
occupant restraint system on the standard attendant seat due to an
undersized attachment fitting. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the restraint attachment fitting and consequent
detachment of the attendant seat during an emergency landing, which
could cause injury to passengers and crew and could impede a rapid
evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
the existing restraint attachment fitting on the standard attendant
seat with a new, improved attachment fitting, in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250027-00, Issue 001, dated
January 14, 2014; and UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2787-
25-006, Revision B, dated July 10, 2013.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric M. Brown,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 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 March 17, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-06571 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38382]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14154-000]

William Arkoosh; Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the
Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 15154-000.
    c. Dated Filed: April 28, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: William Arkoosh.
    e. Name of Project: Little Wood River Ranch II Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: On the Little Wood River, in Lincoln County, Idaho.
The project occupies 3.3 acres of United States lands administered by
the Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: William Arkoosh, 2005 Highway 26,
Gooding, ID 83330;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Mr. Arkoosh filed his request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on April 28, 2011. Mr. Arkoosh provided public notice of his
request on May 26, 2011. In a letter dated June 23, 2011, the Director
of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Mr. Arkoosh's request
to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR, Part 402; and (b) (c) the Idaho State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. A copy of the Pre-Application Document, filed April 28, 2011, is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (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_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph h.
    m. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: June 23, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16476 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P