       Environmental Protection Agency Electronic Manifest System Survey

Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as "the Agency"), with the support of the states, NGOs, industry, and other stakeholders, is preparing to build an IT system to electronically collect the RCRA hazardous waste manifest.  In February 2014, EPA published the first of two rulemakings which will implement e-Manifest.  The Agency has been authorized to collect user fees to offset the costs of building and maintaining the electronic manifest system (hereafter referred to as "e-Manifest").  EPA is currently working on the second rulemaking, which will establish the user fees for the new system. For more information on the e-Manifest project, visit: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man.htm

To help inform the development of the Agency's second e-Manifest rulemaking and the new fee system, the Agency asks that you answer the questions in the attached questionnaire.  Aggregated survey results are likely to appear in the public docket for this rule.  These aggregated results will not reveal individual sources of data.  However, if you have concerns about your responses to any of the questions on this survey becoming publicly available, EPA has prepared an option for you to submit your responses as Confidential Business Information (CBI).  Any claim of CBI would be treated in accordance with the Agency's Confidentiality of Business regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 2, subpart B. If no CBI claim is made when the information is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice.

If you have questions concerning this survey please contact:

Christopher McMinimy	or	Alan Barnosky
EPA					EPA
703-308-0105<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Submitting the Survey

For your convenience, EPA has prepared both an electronic (our preference) and paper version of the survey (the only way to submit your responses as CBI).  If you choose to submit any of your responses as CBI, after you complete the paper survey please clearly bracket all information that you wish to claim CBI and indicate "CBI" or "confidential business information" next to the bracket.  Please enclose the survey in two envelopes.  The inner envelope must have "CBI" written on it.  All paper responses should be mailed by FedEx or UPS to:

LaShan Haynes
EPA/ORCR/PMCAO
2733 South Crystal Drive 6[TH] FL
Arlington, VA 22202
703-605-0516
Manifests in Circulation

User fees for the e-Manifest system will partly depend on the number of hazardous waste manifests the Agency will be processing.

 The Agency asks that you estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests, Federal and State, your company received:

 In calendar year 2013
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2012
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2011
   ____________________ manifests

 What is the approximate number of manifests your company receives on a typical operating day?
      ____________________ manifests / day

 How many unique shippers did you receive manifests from in calendar year 2013?
____________________ shippers

 How many of the manifests that you processed in calendar year 2013 came from shippers who were not the original generators?
___________________ manifests

Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) wastes are not subject to RCRA hazardous waste manifest requirements, but many states require manifests for CESQGs.  Since state governments will be users of e-Manifest, the system will carry CESQG manifests.  The Agency would like to know how many CESQG manifests it can expect the system to carry.

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company received in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, that involved shipments of CESQG wastes:

 In calendar year 2013
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2012
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2011
   ____________________ manifests
Electronic Manifest Adoption

E-Manifest will be an optional alternative to the current paper manifest.  However, as both paper and electronic manifests will be collected and processed by the Agency, the Agency will levy fees on both types of manifests to recover the respective processing costs of each.  In this context, the term "electronic" refers to systems where all data are entered electronically (not scanned, PDF'd, or emailed).  To help estimate the costs and benefits of the e-Manifest system, the Agency would like to know the factors that will affect the use of the system and how many manifests will pass through the system in its first years of operation.

 Does your company plan to switch from paper to electronic manifests?  Please indicate your answer by circling one of the following:

Yes		No

               Please explain the reason for your selection:

If you circled yes for question 6, please answer questions 7.  If you circled no, please skip down to question 8.

 Please circle the year of system operation in which you plan to switch.

                               1[st] year of system operation
                               2[nd] year of system operation
                               3[rd] year of system operation
                               4[th] year of system operation
                               5[th] year of system operation
                               6[th] year of system operation
                               7[th] year of system operation
                               8[th] year of system operation
                               9[th] year of system operation
                               10[th] year of system operation or later

Significant Discrepancies

The Agency believes that hazardous waste manifests with significant discrepancies will be more resource intensive for the e-Manifest system to process than hazardous waste manifests without significant discrepancies.  For the purpose of this survey, significant discrepancies include: 1) differences between the quantities or types of waste listed on the manifest and the quantities or types of waste a facility actually received, and 2) shipments of hazardous waste that a TSDF cannot accept (referred to hereafter as rejected wastes).

The Agency would like to estimate the additional costs associated with significant discrepancies.  The following questions ask about the number of manifests with these discrepancies.

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar year 2013 that involved significant discrepancies to either waste types or waste quantities at the time of receipt.

      ____________________ manifests
 Briefly describe how these are noted on the paper manifest.

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar year 2013 that involved significant discrepancies to either waste types or waste quantities after receipt.

      ____________________ manifests

 Please estimate the approximate number of these manifests that were corrected in the following timeframes.  These estimates should sum to the total number of manifests in the first part of question 9.

                   Within 1 to 15 days of receipt__________
                   Within 16 to 90 days of receipt_________
                   Beyond 90 days of receipt_____________

 Briefly describe how these are noted on the paper manifest

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that involved rejected wastes.

 In calendar year 2013
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2012
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2011
   ____________________ manifests

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that involved corrections other than the types listed in questions 8, 9, and 10:

In calendar year 2013
      ____________________ manifests

In calendar year 2012
      ____________________ manifests

In calendar year 2011
      ____________________ manifests

 Briefly describe the types of corrections and how they were noted on the paper manifest.

State Governments

      State governments that collect hazardous waste manifests will be users of the e-Manifest system.  The Agency would like to get a better understanding of which state governments collect hazardous waste manifests and how you currently handle fees to states.

      For questions 13, 14, 15, and 16 please mark your answer on the table below.

             Please indicate with a check mark in column B of the following table all state governments to which your company submitted copies of hazardous waste manifests during calendar years 2011 to 2013.

             Please indicate with a check mark in column C of the following table all state governments to which your company paid hazardous waste manifest fees during calendar years 2011 to 2013.

             Please indicate with a check mark in columns D through G of the following table how your company paid fees to each of the state governments you indicated in column C.

             .Please indicate with a checkmark in column H of the following table all state governments to which you make automated payments of state manifest fees.

                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H

                                   Question:
                                      13
                                      14
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15
                                      16

                                     State
                            Submit Copies to State
                               Pay fees to State
                                  Credit Card
                             Central Debt Account
                                     Check
                            Other (please Specify)
                           Automated Payment Systems
                                       1
ALABAMA

                                       2
ALASKA

                                       3
ARIZONA

                                       4
ARKANSAS

                                       5
CALIFORNIA

                                       6
COLORADO

                                       7
CONNECTICUT

                                       8
DELAWARE

                                       9
FLORIDA

                                      10
GEORGIA

                                      11
HAWAII

                                      12
IDAHO

                                      13
ILLINOIS

                                      14
INDIANA

                                      15
IOWA

                                      16
KANSAS

                                      17
KENTUCKY

                                      18
LOUISIANA

                                      19
MAINE

                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H

                                   Question:
                                      13
                                      14
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15
                                      16

                                     State
                            Submit Copies to State
                               Pay fees to State
                                  Credit Card
                             Central Debt Account
                                     Check
                            Other (please Specify)
                           Automated Payment Systems
                                      20
MARYLAND

                                      21
MASSACHUSETTS

                                      22
MICHIGAN

                                      23
MINNESOTA

                                      24
MISSISSIPPI

                                      25
MISSOURI

                                      26
MONTANA

                                      27
NEBRASKA

                                      28
NEVADA

                                      29
NEW HAMPSHIRE

                                      30
NEW JERSEY

                                      31
NEW MEXICO

                                      32
NEW YORK

                                      33
NORTH CAROLINA

                                      34
NORTH DAKOTA

                                      35
OHIO

                                      36
OKLAHOMA

                                      37
OREGON

                                      38
PENNSYLVANIA

                                      39
RHODE ISLAND

                                      40
SOUTH CAROLINA

                                      41
SOUTH DAKOTA

                                      42
TENNESSEE

                                      43
TEXAS

                                      44
UTAH

                                      45
VERMONT

                                      46
VIRGINIA

                                      47
WASHINGTON

                                      48
WEST VIRGINIA

                                      49
WISCONSIN

                                      50
WYOMING

 Please estimate how many of the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that only carried state hazardous waste codes.

 In calendar year 2013
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2012
   ____________________ manifests

 In calendar year 2011
   ____________________ manifests

Transportation

The Agency expects that manifests associated with rail shipments, and manifests associated with international shipments, will require e-Manifest system resources above and beyond a standard truck-borne, domestic manifest.  The Agency would like to be able to better estimate these additional costs.

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar year 2013 that were carried at least partially by rail.
      ____________________ manifests

 Please estimate the total number of hazardous waste manifests your company processed in calendar year 2013 that involved international shipments.
      ____________________ manifests

Industry Systems

 Does your company currently use your own electronic systems to comply with federal or state RCRA reporting requirements? Please indicate your answer by circling one of the following options.  (Note: in this context, the term "electronic" refers to systems where all data are entered electronically (not scanned, PDF'd, or emailed).

Yes		No

If you circled yes, please answer the following questions.  If you circled no, please skip to questions 22.

             Please briefly describe the electronic system(s) that you use.

             What technology is your current manifest system built on? (Ex. .NET Framework, Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE), Commercial Off The Shelf Products (COTS), Government Off The Shelf Products (GOTS)).

             Is your company's system open or closed?  If it is open what protocol does it use? (Ex. XML stream).

             On average, how often do you need to enroll or remove users from your current system?  Please circle the most correct answer.

               Daily	Weekly	Monthly	Quarterly	Annually

       Do you currently require your customers to use electronic tracking/electronic recordkeeping systems? Please indicate your answer by circling one of the following:

Yes		No

 If yes, please briefly describe these systems.

       Would you require your customers to use electronic manifests/electronic record keeping systems if you were using e-Manifest? Please indicate your answer by circling one of the following:

Yes		No
If you answered yes to the previous question, please answer Question 23. If you answered no, please continue to Question 24.

    Based on the requirements set forth in the 1-year e-Manifest rule, how would you encourage your customers to use electronic manifests/electronic record systems? (Examples might include:  provide them with software, increase the charge for paper manifests, etc.)

The Agency needs to estimate the number of user accounts which will be registered in the electronic manifest system and how the system will be used.  To get an upper-bound estimate, the Agency is assuming for purposes of the current survey that every employee who signs, modifies, or handles a manifest will need to register a user account.

    Under this scenario, how many user accounts do you estimate your company would require?
   ____________________ accounts

    What is the smallest number of users that your company might have?

   ____________________ users

    How would you prefer to enter data into e-Manifest?  Please rank the following options in order from most to least desirable, with 1 being most desirable and 7 being least desirable.

 Smartphone
 Tablet
 Desktop computer
 Laptop computer
 Website
 Electronic transfer from existing industry system
 Other  -  please specify:

Thank you for completing this survey.  As this is part of an ongoing effort, please provide the name, email address, and phone number of someone the Agency may contact incase further questions arise.
Name: ____________________
E-Mail:____________________
Phone: ____________________


[Federal Register: March 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10510-10511]
[DOCID:fr08mr07-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-25-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern System Expansion
Project II

March 2, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the
natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Questar Pipeline Company
(Questar) in the above-referenced docket. This EA has been prepared in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Interior's, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(collectively, ``cooperating agencies'').
    The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The staff and cooperating agencies conclude
that approval of the proposed project, with

appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the proposed Southern System Expansion
Project II including:
    Main Line 104 Extension Pipeline--Consisting of about 53.9 miles of
new 24-inch-diameter pipeline loop and ancillary facilities in Uintah,
Duchesne and Carbon Counties, Utah. The new pipeline would loop
Questar's existing Main Line 40 northeast of Price, Utah and include a
pig launcher, four new mainline block valves, a 200-barrel slug
catcher, cathodic protection systems, and associated crossover piping,
taps, and valves.
    Main Line 104 Loop Pipeline--Consisting of about 4.7 miles of new
24-inch-diameter pipeline loop and ancillary facilities. The ML 104
Loop pipeline would parallel Questar's existing ML 104 between its
existing Fausett Junction and Oak Spring Compressor Station facilities.
    Blind Canyon Compressor Station Upgrades--Consisting of upgrades to
one of two existing compressor units. Additional proposed facility
upgrades would include the installation of about 1,200 feet of new
station suction and discharge piping, one pig launcher, one pig
receiver, one block valve, one spillover valve, one ultrasonic gas
meter, and one filter separator.
    Oak Spring Compressor Station Upgrades--Consisting of restaging two
of the three existing compressor units. Additional proposed facility
upgrades would include installation of one pig receiver, one block
valve, and one valve associated with the pig receiver.
    Price Yard Facilities--Consisting of approximately 200 feet of
inlet and outlet piping, a 200-barrel slug catcher, a filter separator,
and associated valves that would be installed within the boundary of
the existing facility site.
    The purpose of the Southern System Expansion Project II is to
deliver up to approximately 175,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas
on a firm basis from various receipt points on Questar's southern
transmission system to a delivery point at an existing interconnect
facility with the Kern River Gas Transmission Company pipeline near
Goshen, Utah.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state and local
agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected
landowners, newspapers, and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure
consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is
important that we receive your comments before the date specified
below.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the

link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to
create a free account which can be created by clicking on ``Sign-up.''
    If you are filing written comments, please carefully follow these
instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and
properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 3, PJ 11.3.
     Reference Docket No. CP07-25-000; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before April 2, 2007.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on

the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4121 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78524-78526]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0918; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-090-AD;
Amendment 39-16896; AD 2011-26-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300
series airplanes, and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. This AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:

    During a pre-flight test before delivery of an aeroplane from
the Airbus production line, a fault message was triggered on FDU1
[fire detection unit].
    Investigations by the supplier on the faulty FDU have identified
a soldering quality issue on one of the internal cards. This quality
issue resulted from a specific repair process that was applied to
some FDU * * * during manufacturing.
    The FDU monitors the engine, Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and Main
Landing Gear (MLG) bay fire detection systems.
    This condition, if not corrected, may adversely affect the fire
detection system performance in case of a fire in the area that is
monitored by the faulty FDU, potentially resulting in an unsafe
condition.
* * * * *
    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 23, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2011
(76 FR 56680). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a pre-flight test before delivery of an aeroplane from
the Airbus production line, a fault message was triggered on FDU1.
    Investigations by the supplier on the faulty FDU have identified
a soldering quality issue on one of the internal cards. This quality
issue resulted from a specific repair process that was applied to
some FDU Part Number (P/N) 3711-00 during manufacturing.
    The FDU monitors the engine, Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and Main
Landing Gear (MLG) bay fire detection systems.
    This condition, if not corrected, may adversely affect the fire
detection system performance in case of a fire in the area that is
monitored by the faulty FDU, potentially resulting in an unsafe
condition.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
identification and replacement of the affected FDU.

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

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 56680, September
14, 2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 58 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Replacement parts may be provided free of charge by the manufacturer.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $4,930, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ''significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative,

on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM (76 FR 56680, September 14,
2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD:

2011-26-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-16896. Docket No. FAA-2011-0918;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-090-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
23, 2012.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223,
-223F, -243, and -243F airplanes; Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321,
-322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; Model A340-211, -212,
and -213 airplanes; Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes; Model
A340-541 airplanes; and Model A340-642 airplanes; certificated in
any category; all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26: Fire
Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During a pre-flight test before delivery of an aeroplane from
the Airbus production line, a fault message was triggered on FDU1
[fire detection unit].
    Investigations by the supplier on the faulty FDU have identified
a soldering quality issue on one of the internal cards. This quality
issue resulted from a specific repair process that was applied to
some FDU * * * during manufacturing.
    The FDU monitors the engine, Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and Main
Landing Gear (MLG) bay fire detection systems.
    This condition, if not corrected, may adversely affect the fire
detection system performance in case of a fire in the area that is
monitored by the faulty FDU, potentially resulting in an unsafe
condition.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Do an inspection to identify the fire detection unit (FDU) part
number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) of each engine, auxiliary power
unit (APU), and MLG bay (for Model A340-500 and -600 series
airplanes only), as applicable, in accordance with the instructions
of Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-26A3052, dated April 19,
2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes); Airbus AOT
A340-200/300-26A4044, dated April 19, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -
300 series airplanes); or Airbus AOT A340-500/600-26A5024, dated
April 19, 2011 (for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes). A
review of maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this
inspection if the part number and serial number of the installed FDU
can be conclusively determined from that review.
    (h) If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, an FDU with P/N 3711-00 is found installed and the serial number
of the FDU is listed in table 1 of this AD: Before further flight,
replace the FDU with a serviceable FDU, in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus AOT A330-26A3052, dated April 19, 2011 (for
Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes); Airbus AOT A340-200/300-
26A4044, dated April 19, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series
airplanes); or Airbus AOT A340-500/600-26A5024, dated April 19, 2011
(for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes).

                   Table 1--Affected P/N 3711-00 FDUs

                             Serial numbers

ZL0683
ZL0718
ZL0721 through ZL0725 inclusive
ZL0727
ZL0729 through ZL0731 inclusive
ZL0736
ZL0738
ZL0740
ZL0742
ZL0743
ZL0745
ZL0747
ZL0770
ZL0772
ZL0775
ZL0788
ZL0804

    Note 1:  Some of the affected P/N 3711-00 FDUs have been
installed in production on certain airplanes, as indicated in table
2 of this AD.

                  Table 2--FDUs Installed in Production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Model A330-200 and -300
 airplanes manufacturer  serial         Position               S/N
             numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1177............................  ENG2 FDU (1WD2).....  ZL0683
1191............................  ENG2 FDU (1WD2).....  ZL0723
1192............................  ENG1 FDU (1WD1).....  ZL0721
                                  ENG2 FDU (1WD2).....  ZL0722
1193............................  APU FDU (13WG)......  ZL0718
1195............................  ENG1 FDU (1WD1).....  ZL0740
1196............................  ENG1 FDU (1WD1).....  ZL0742
                                  ENG2 FDU (1WD2).....  ZL0736
                                  APU FDU (13WG)......  ZL0743
1198............................  ENG2 FDU (1WD2).....  ZL0738
1199............................  APU FDU (13WG)......  ZL0731
1200............................  ENG1 FDU (1WD1).....  ZL0747

1206............................  ENG2 FDU (1WD2).....  ZL0770
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parts Installation

    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
on any airplane, any P/N 3711-00 FDU with a serial number listed in
table 1 of this AD, unless the FDU has been reworked and re-
identified by L'Hotellier as specified in the instructions in Airbus
AOT A330-26A3052, dated April 19, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300
series airplanes); Airbus AOT A340-200/300-26A4044, dated April 19,
2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes); or Airbus AOT
A340-500/600-26A5024, dated April 19, 2011 (for Model A340-500 and -
600 series airplanes).

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0073, dated April 20, 2011; Airbus AOT
A330-26A3052, dated April 19, 2011; Airbus AOT A340-200/300-26A4044,
dated April 19, 2011; and Airbus AOT A340-500/600-26A5024, dated
April 19, 2011; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
    (1) Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-26A3052, dated April
19, 2011. Only the first page of this document contains the document
number and date.
    (2) Airbus AOT A340-200/300-26A4044, dated April 19, 2011. Only
the first page of this document contains the document number and
date.
    (3) Airbus AOT A340-500/600-26A5024, dated April 19, 2011. Only
the first page of this document contains the document number and
date.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (5) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 6, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32021 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's redesignation request for the
Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area.
    Second, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, including the
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2025 submitted by Georgia
into the State's SIP (under section 175A). The maintenance plan
demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all of the adequacy
criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as part of
today's action, EPA is describing the status of its adequacy
determination for transportation conformity purposes for the
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2025 under 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's
adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the effective date for the
final rule approving the MVEBs into the Georgia SIP, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).
    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the official designation of Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA
Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part
81 from nonattainment to attainment.

X. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval
of Georgia's redesignation request would change the legal designation
of Catoosa and Walker Counties in Georgia for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment. Approval of GA EPD's request would also incorporate a plan
for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Chattanooga TN-GA Area through 2025 into the Georgia SIP. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures for
evaluation of potential violations. The maintenance plan also includes
NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Georgia portion of
the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public
of the status of its adequacy determination for the NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory action[s]'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are 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
     do 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 proposed 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
Georgia, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
V. Anne Heard
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-26735 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23952-23953]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1641-000]

Southern Illinois Generation Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice
That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket
Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Southern Illinois Generation Company, LLC's application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that
such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of

future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 14, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 24, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09193 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 15367]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06088]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0165]

Port Access Route Study (PARS): In Nantucket Sound

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; final report.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) conducted the Nantucket Sound Port
Access Route Study (PARS) in accordance with the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), as directed by the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2015. The USCG used the standards and methodology
of the Atlantic Coast PARS to determine whether existing regulations
should be revised to improve navigation safety in Nantucket Sound due
to factors such as increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, or navigational difficulty. The report,
as submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate on February 27, 2017, is available in
the docket for viewing. It concluded that no regulatory changes to
existing vessel routing measures are needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The Nantucket Sound PARS considered whether existing regulations
should be revised to improve navigation safety in Nantucket Sound due
to factors such as vessel traffic density, vessel traffic patterns,
weather conditions, or navigation challenges in the study area. All
available sources of data relevant to this process, including existing
and potential traffic patterns, existing regulations, public
submissions, and other factors were analyzed. Although the study
recommended no regulatory changes to existing vessel routing measures,
the USCG will continue to actively monitor and initiate appropriate
actions on all waterways subject to its jurisdiction as needed to
support navigation safety.

Public Participation and Comments

    On March 22, 2016, we published a Notice of Study; request for
comments entitled ``Port Access Route Study (PARS): In Nantucket
Sound'' in the Federal Register (81 FR 15327). Six comments were
received in response to our Federal Register Notice and other outreach
efforts.

Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view the final report as submitted to Congress and comments, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, type ``USCG-2016-0165'' into the search
bar and click search, next to the displayed search results click ``Open
Docket Folder'', which will display all comments and documents
associated with this study.

Privacy Act

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

Conclusion

    The Nantucket Sound PARS focused on gathering factual and relevant
information to aid the USCG assess potential risk of marine casualties
and efficiency of vessel traffic in the region. The USCG analyzed
vessel traffic density, hazards, agency and stakeholder experience in
vessel traffic management, navigation, ship handling, the effects of
weather, and impacts to marine mammals and other wildlife. The USCG
also considered public comments in the final report. The Nantucket
Sound PARS concluded that no regulatory changes to existing vessel
routing measures are needed but reiterated that the USCG actively
monitors all waterways subject to its jurisdiction to help ensure
navigation safety. As such, the USCG will continue to monitor Nantucket
Sound for changing conditions and consider appropriate actions to
promote waterway and user safety.

    Dated: March 10, 2017.
S.D. Poulin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-06088 Filed 3-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P