[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68439]
[DOCID:fr10no05-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License And Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 4, 2005.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Extension of Time to Commence and Complete
Construction.
    b. Project No.: 12020-012.
    c. Date Filed: October 6, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Marseilles Hydro Power LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Marseilles Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Illinois River, LaSalle
County, Illinois.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 13 of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 806.
    h. Applicant Contact: Donald H. Clarke, Counsel to Marseilles Hydro
Power LLC, Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K Street, NW., Suite 330,
Washington, DC 20005,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site
http://www.gkrse-law.com.

    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Mrs. Anumzziatta Purchiaroni at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: December 5, 2005.
    k. Description of Request: The Applicant is requesting a two year
extension of the deadline for commencement of construction until
November 28, 2007, and that the deadline for completion of construction
also to be extended to November 28, 2009. The licensee is requesting
additional time to accommodate unanticipated delays and to commence the
rehabilitation and construction work planned.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information about this filing
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. All documents
(original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6221 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


region facility species. orig stage year impinged. est entrained. est dummy dummy dummy dummy dummy  999  999 river labadie gar age01 1974 12 . river labadie gizzard. shad age01 1974 16,848 . river labadie carp age01 1974 64 . river labadie suckers age01 1974 30 . river labadie catfish age01 1974 561 . river labadie bullheads age01 1974 40 . river labadie white. bass. striped. bass age01 1974 64 . river labadie rock. bass. bluegill. bass. age01 1974 83 . river labadie crappie age01 1974 54 . river labadie drum age01 1974 2,929 . river labadie lampreys. shiners. minnows. stonecats age01 1974 185 . river labadie gar. spp larvae 1974 . 309,075 river labadie herrings larvae 1974 . 21,788,734 river labadie mooneyes larvae 1974 . 16,784,914 river labadie carp larvae 1974 . 3,027,871 river labadie minnow. spp larvae 1974 . 70,024,712 river labadie sucker. spp larvae 1974 . 1,562,428 river labadie carpsuckers larvae 1974 . 1,332,221 river labadie mosquitofish larvae 1974 . 85,262 river labadie morone. spp larvae 1974 . 227,010 river labadie sunfish larvae 1974 . 744,978 river labadie crappie larvae 1974 . 294,154 river labadie yellow. perch larvae 1974 . 82,065 river labadie logperch larvae 1974 . 149,209 river labadie walleye. sauger larvae 1974 . 2,253,051 river labadie darter larvae 1974 . 115,104 river labadie freshwater. drum larvae 1974 . 4,094,713 river labadie unknown. fish larvae 1974 . 1,334,352 notes qc dummy dummy RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation RM# 35970; Tables 4& 5 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation Extrapolated based on RM# 35970 table 6 lefer, did not check extrapolation species aug. 1974 sept. 1974 oct. 1974 nov. 1974 dec. 1974 jan. 1975 feb. 1975 gar 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 gizzard. shad 7.38 3.74 0.04 0.79 8.32 7.49 17.57 carp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 suckers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 catfish 0.05 0.61 0 0 0.1 0.17 0.17 bullheads 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 white. bass. striped. bass 0 0.04 0 0.1 0 0.09 0 rock. bass. bluegill. bass 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 crappie 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 drum 3.18 2.32 0.04 0.45 0.1 0.09 0.07 lampreys. shiners. minnows. stonecats 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 sum 10.66 6.83 0.08 1.34 8.52 7.92 17.83 projected. total 3659.5 2089.1 18.4 299.5 2009.8 2555.7 4718.2 extrap. factor 343.2927 305.87116 230 223.5075 235.892 322.6894 264.6214 gar. extrap 0 12.234846 0 0 0 0 0 gizzard. shad. extrap 2533.5 1143.9581 9.2 176.5709 1962.622 2416.944 4649.398 carp. extrap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 suckers. extrap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 catfish. extrap 17.16463 186.58141 0 0 23.5892 54.8572 44.98564 bullheads. extrap 17.16463 0 0 0 0 0 5.292428 white. bass. striped. bass. extrap 0 12.234846 0 22.35075 0 29.04205 0 rock. bass. bluegill. bass.. extrap 0 24.469693 0 0 0 0 0 crappie. extrap 0 0 0 0 0 12.90758 0 drum. extrap 1091.671 709.62108 9.2 100.5784 23.5892 29.04205 18.5235 lampreys. shiners. minnows. stonecats. extrap 0 0 0 0 0 12.90758 0 0.181509 3787.751 march. 1975 april. 1975 may. 1975 june. 1975 july. 1975 projected. annual qc 0 0 0 0 0 lefer 3.66 10.59 0.78 0 0.18 16845.4 lefer 0 0 0.07 0 0.18 lefer 0.02 0.05 0.07 0 0 lefer 0.16 0.22 0.64 0 0.09 lefer 0.02 0 0.07 0 0 lefer 0 0 0 0 0 lefer 0.04 0.05 0.21 0 0 lefer 0.02 0.11 0.04 0 0 lefer 0.33 0.43 4.33 0 0.09 2695.6 lefer 0.09 0.49 0.04 0.05 0 lefer 0.1 4.34 11.94 6.25 0.05 0.54 lefer 0.001048493 1216.6 3098.5 1034.2 13 156.4 20868.9 lefer 21.703656 280.3225806 259.50586 165.472 260 289.6296 lefer 0 0 0 0 0 12 not qc'd by lefer 1025.980645 2748.1671 129.06816 0 52.13333 16848 not qc'd by lefer 0 0 11.58304 0 52.13333 64 not qc'd by lefer 5.606451613 12.975293 11.58304 0 0 30 not qc'd by lefer 44.8516129 57.09129 105.90208 0 26.06667 561 not qc'd by lefer 5.606451613 0 11.58304 0 0 40 not qc'd by lefer 0 0 0 0 0 64 not qc'd by lefer 11.21290323 12.975293 34.74912 0 0 83 not qc'd by lefer 5.606451613 28.545645 6.61888 0 0 54 not qc'd by lefer 92.50645161 111.58752 716.49376 0 26.06667 2929 not qc'd by lefer 25.22903226 127.15787 6.61888 13 0 185 not qc'd by lefer total 20868.9 Species entrained per 100,000 gal. of water FLOW ( CFS): 1649 RM# 35970 pg 5 species july. 19.1974 july. 24.1974 july. 29.1974 aug. 8.1974 aug. 15.1974 aug. 22.1974 aug. 29.1974 gar. spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 herrings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mooneyes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 minnow. spp 87.3 45.1 14.4 3.2 0 2.6 0.7 sucker. spp 0 3 0 0 1.1 0 0 carpsuckers 3.5 0 10.4 0 0 0.5 0 mosquitofish 0.6 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 morone. spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 crappie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 yellow. perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 logperch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 walleye. sauger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 darter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 freshwater. drum 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 unknown. fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92.0 48.1 25.3 3.2 1.1 3.1 0.7 7.480519 cubic ft/ gal cubic ft/ gal 86400 sec/ day 0.646316842 conversion from cfs to mgd 1065.776472 mgd 10657.76472 100000 gal/ day days 5 5 10 7 7 7 7 species july. 19.1974 july. 24.1974 july. 29.1974 aug. 8.1974 aug. 15.1974 aug. 22.1974 aug. 29.1974 gar. spp        herrings        mooneyes        carp        minnow. spp 4,652,114 2,403,326 1,534,718 238,734  193,971 52,223 sucker. spp  159,866   82,065   carpsuckers 186,511  1,108,408   37,302  mosquitofish 31,973  53,289     morone. spp        sunfish        crappie        yellow. perch        logperch        walleye. sauger        darter        freshwater. drum 31,973       unknown. fish

7/ 19/ 1974 27229.00 7/ 24/ 1974 27234.00 5.00 7/ 29/ 1974 27239.00 5.00 8/ 8/ 1974 27249.00 10.00 8/ 15/ 1974 27256.00 7.00 8/ 22/ 1974 27263.00 7.00 8/ 29/ 1974 27270.00 7.00 4/ 3/ 1975 27487.00 217.00 4/ 10/ 1975 27494.00 7.00 4/ 17/ 1975 27501.00 7.00 4/ 22/ 1975 27506.00 5.00 5/ 1/ 1975 27515.00 9.00 5/ 8/ 1975 27522.00 7.00 5/ 15/ 1975 27529.00 7.00 5/ 22/ 1975 27536.00 7.00 5/ 29/ 1975 27543.00 7.00 6/ 5/ 1975 27550.00 7.00 6/ 12/ 1975 27557.00 7.00 6/ 19/ 1975 27564.00 7.00 6/ 26/ 1975 27571.00 7.00 7/ 3/ 1975 27578.00 7.00 pg 51 april. 3.1975 april. 10.1975 april. 17.1975 april. 22.1975 may. 1.1975 may. 8.1975 may. 15.1975 may. 22.1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 2.9 3.7 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 77.9 30.7 0 0 0 0 13 5.5 2.5 0.4 0 0 0 0 7.8 35.4 20.9 22.3 0 0 0 0 3.3 8.1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0.4 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.4 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 3.3 17 6.1 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 2.6 5.5 0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 29.4 68.6 114.7 59.3 0.1337 12333.58265 GAL/ SEC 1065621541 GAL/ DAY 1065.621541 MGD 217 7 5 9 7 7 7 7 april. 3.1975 april. 10.1975 april. 17.1975 april. 22.1975 may. 1.1975 may. 8.1975 may. 15.1975 may. 22.1975             52,223  216,353 276,036      29,842 5,811,679 2,290,354     969,857 410,324 186,511 29,842     581,914 2,640,994 1,559,231 1,663,677     246,194 604,295 216,353                              96,986 29,842 52,223               82,065        52,223 29,842    42,631 76,736 246,194 1,268,274 455,087 52,223       29,842         111,907     193,971 410,324  52,223 may. 29.1975 june. 5.1975 june. 12.1975 june. 19.1975 june. 26.1975 july. 3.1975 sum 0.9 1.5 0 0 0.6 0.5 3.5 43.4 119.3 2.7 17.7 34 29.6 254 5.6 106.1 0.4 0 1.6 1 223.7 3.7 8.6 0.4 2.9 1.3 1 39.3 69.6 226.9 20.2 10.7 133 118.2 818.3 0.9 1 0.9 0 0.6 0 21.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0.5 2.4 0.9 0.5 0 0.4 0.3 2.4 6.9 0 2.5 0 0 0.3 0.5 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.5 0 0 0.4 0 0 2 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 30.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.9 0.9 5.6 0.9 0 19.5 11.4 40.4 0 2.5 0 0.8 3.5 1 16.6 128.3 473.5 25.5 32.1 191.2 165.6 1463.3 7 7 7 7 7 16 may. 29.1975 june. 5.1975 june. 12.1975 june. 19.1975 june. 26.1975 july. 3.1975 sum 67,144 111,907   44,763 85,262 309,075 3,237,829 8,900,299 201,432 1,320,497 2,536,548 5,047,517 21,788,734 417,784 7,915,522 29,842  119,367 170,524 16,784,914 276,036 641,597 29,842 216,353 96,986 170,524 3,027,871 5,192,463 16,927,728 1,507,008 798,267 9,922,379 20,155,965 70,024,712 67,144 74,604 67,144  44,763  1,562,428       1,332,221       85,262 141,748     85,262 227,010 67,144 37,302  29,842 22,381 409,258 744,978  186,511   22,381 85,262 294,154       82,065 37,302   29,842   149,209  111,907     2,253,051      85,262 115,104 67,144 417,784 67,144  1,454,785 1,943,976 4,094,713  186,511  59,683 261,115 170,524 1,334,352 extrap. ent. per. 100000. gal extrap. ent source QC 60.8 608.3 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 4,414.8 44,147.6 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 3,888.1 38,881.2 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 683.1 6,830.7 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 14,222.8 142,228.3 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 378.9 3,789.0 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 250.3 2,502.9 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 19.1 191.2 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 41.7 417.1 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 119.9 1,199.3 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 57.4 573.6 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 19.1 191.2 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 34.8 347.6 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 524.9 5,249.0 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 15.6 156.4 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 702.2 7,021.9 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer 288.5 2,885.2 RM# 35970 table 6 columns B V were qc'd, Lefer Losses data for Labadie Power Plant ( Missouri). Cooling water source: Missouri River Intake 316( b) Phase III A. Gage, 12/ 1/ 2003 Notes: RM 35970 Extrapolated using the annual estimate for all species on page 39 and the sampling numbers by species from pg 36 ( Table 4). Extrapolated numbers do not match table 5  which to use?

QC Checked imp. And ent. Data entry against document. M. Lefer 12/ 8/ 03, 3/ 18/ 04.

ENT extrapolations checked by dc 2/ 13/ 04 IMP values look OK as is. Discrepancies bewtween extapolated totals and totals in table 5 ( p39) are well within roundoff error.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 2, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13527

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC, d/b/a USA 3000 (USA 3000),  filed
3/17/06 for:

XX  Renewal of Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) Baltimore, Maryland, and Cancun, Mexico; and (2) Cincinnati,
Ohio, and Cancun, Mexico.

Applicant rep: Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Linda Lundell
(202)366-2336

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: June 2, 2006, through  June
2, 2008 .

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX  The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

				APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

   The State of Maryland filed in support of USA 3000’s renewal
application here.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35419-35420]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Monroe, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for Charlotte-Monroe Executive
Airport, Monroe, NC. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of
the Charlotte Class B Biennial Review. This action would also update
the airports name to Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, (formerly
Monroe Airport). In addition, this action would also update the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments, can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Goodson, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend Class E airspace in Monroe, NC, to support IFR
operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-0529 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and telephone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and telephone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe, NC, by increasing the
radius to 9.0 miles, (formerly 6.3 miles). In addition, this action
would update the airport name to Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport
(formerly Monroe Airport) and update the geographical coordinates to
coincide with the FAA's database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Monroe, NC [Amended]

Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]01'03'' N, long. 80[deg]37'19'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.0-mile radius of Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 30, 2021.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-14320 Filed 7-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33307-33308]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0487]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. This deviation is
necessary to accommodate maintenance to the metro trolley system which
crosses the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on June 16, 2012
through 8 a.m. June 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0487 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0487 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) has requested that the Montlake Bridge
temporarily remain in the down or closed position to facilitate
maintenance of the King County Metro Trolley system. The scheduled
maintenance will take place on two separate nights in June 2012. The
first maintenance period will be the night of June 16, 2012 starting at
10 p.m. lasting until 8 a.m. June 17, 2012. The second maintenance
period will be June 23, 2012 starting at 10 p.m. lasting until 8 a.m.
June 24, 2012. During these maintenance periods WSDOT has requested
that the Montlake Bridge remain in the closed position. King County
Metro Transit will be replacing the electrical cables and installing
new electrical switches for the Metro Trolley system. King County will
have electrical equipment and associated maintenance vehicles staged on
the Montlake Bridge during these maintenance periods. The Montlake
Bridge crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in
the closed position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout
the navigation channel and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the
center 60-feet of the bridge; vertical clearance referenced to the Mean
Water Level of Lake Washington. Vessels which do not require a bridge
opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during these closure
periods. Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance
with 33 CFR 117.1051(e) which requires the bridge to open on signal,
except that the bridge need not open for vessels less than 1,000 gross
tons between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. This deviation period is from 10 p.m. June 16, 2012
through 8 a.m. June 24, 2012. This deviation allows the bascule span of
the Montlake Bridge to remain in the closed position and need not open
for maritime traffic from 10 p.m. on June 16, 2012 until 8 a.m. on June
17, 2012, and also from 10 p.m. on June 23, 2012 until 8 a.m. June 24,
2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1051(e) at
all other times. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal
ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners
will be notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status
via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners as appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if
needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during the
closure periods.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Randall D. Overton,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-13741 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78946-78948]
[DOCID:fr24de08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0858; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-054-AD;
Amendment 39-15773; AD 2008-26-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-
12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43
Airplanes; Model DC-8-50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55
Airplanes; Model DC-8-60 Series Airplanes; Model DC-8-60F Series
Airplanes; Model DC-8-70 Series Airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
McDonnell Douglas airplanes identified above. This AD requires
repetitive inspections of the lower skin and stringers at stations
Xw=408 and Xw=-408, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD
results from reports of cracks in the skins and stringers at the end
fasteners common to the stringer end fittings at stations Xw= 408 and
Xw=-408 wing splice joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in the skins and stringers at the end
fasteners common to the stringer end fittings at certain station and
wing splice joints, which could result in wing structure that might not
sustain limit load, and consequent loss of structural integrity of the
wing.

DATES: This AD is effective January 28, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 28,
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 206-
766-5682; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-
32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-50
series airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-60
series airplanes; Model DC-8-60F series airplanes; Model DC-8-70 series
airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F series airplanes. That NPRM was published
in the Federal Register on August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46823). That NPRM
proposed to require repetitive inspections of the lower skin and
stringers at stations Xw=408 and Xw=-408, and corrective actions if
necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received from the commenters.

Request To Review Proposed Compliance Time for Accuracy

    The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member UPS,
requests that we review the compliance time specified in the NPRM
against Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated February 12,
2008 (``the service bulletin''). UPS points out that the Relevant
Service Information section of the NPRM specifies a compliance time of
``Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within
1,500 flight cycles or 2 years after the date of the service bulletin,
whichever occurs latest.'' UPS further points out that the compliance
time specified in the service bulletin is ``Before the accumulation of
20,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles or 2 years
after the date of the service bulletin, whichever occurs first.'' UPS
prefers that the NPRM be revised to match the service bulletin.
    We do not agree to revise the compliance time specified in this
final rule. However, we find that clarification is necessary because
the Relevant Service Information section of the NPRM does not
accurately reflect the compliance time specified in the service
bulletin.
    It was our intent that the compliance time specified throughout the
NPRM match the compliance time specified in the service bulletin. The
Relevant Service Information section of the NPRM should have described
the compliance time specified in the service bulletin as follows:
``Whichever occurs later: (1) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total
flight cycles; or (2) within 1,500 flight cycles or 2 years after the
date of the service bulletin (whichever occurs first).'' Although it is
not clear in the NPRM that the grace period is the earlier of ``1,500
flight cycles or 2 years * * *,'' it is clear that the compliance time
is the later of 20,000 total flight cycles or the grace period (1,500
flight cycles or 2 years), as specified in the service bulletin.
    Because paragraph (f) of the NPRM refers to paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of
information for the compliance time for the proposed actions, our
intent was clear that the proposed compliance time for this AD match
the compliance time provided in the service bulletin. No change to this
final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 87 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                          Average                                                  U.S.-
                  Action                    Work hours   labor rate     Parts           Cost per product         registered           Fleet cost
                                                          per hour                                               airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...............................            6          $80           $0  $480, per inspection cycle..           87  $41,760, per inspection
                                                                                cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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:

2008-26-07 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15773. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0858; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-054-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 28,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-
8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43,
DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-
8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-
73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in any
category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracks in the skins and
stringers at the end fasteners common to the stringer end fittings
at stations Xw=408 and Xw=-408 wing splice joints. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the skins and
stringers at the end fasteners common to the stringer end fittings
at certain station and wing splice joints, which could result in
wing structure that might not sustain limit load, and consequent
loss of structural integrity of the wing.

Compliance

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

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (f) At the times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated February 12, 2008
(``the service bulletin''), except as provided by paragraph (g) of
this AD: Do the applicable inspections for fatigue cracking of the
lower skin and stringers at stations Xw=408 and Xw=-408, and do all
applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all applicable
actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all
corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the
service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the
applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E. of the service
bulletin.
    (g) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated
February 12, 2008 (``the service bulletin''), specifies a compliance
time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (h) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated
February 12, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, ATTN: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120L, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (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 an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD is an acceptable
AMOC with the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 93-01-15,
amendment 39-8469, for those areas of principal structural element
57.08.037/038.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated
February 12, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
206-766-5682; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information that is
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information 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 12, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-30265 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62371-62372]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0722]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Chattanooga, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.7 and
ending at mile marker 464.5, extending bank to bank near Chattanooga,
Tennessee. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons
and property from potential damage and safety hazards during a
fireworks display on or over the navigable waterway. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced through actual
notice from 9:00 p.m. through 9:30 p.m., on September 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0722 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Vera Max, Marine Safety Detachment
Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event sponsor submitted the event
application on July 19, 2016. This late submission did not give the
Coast Guard enough time to complete the full NPRM process. Delaying the
effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the fireworks display over the subject
waterway.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on September
10, 2016, will be a safety concern for all waters of the Tennessee
River, beginning at mile marker 463.7 and ending at 464.5. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on September 10,
2016. The temporary safety zone will cover all waters of the Tennessee
River, beginning at mile marker 463.7 and ending at 464.5, extending
bank to bank. Transit into and through this area is prohibited from
9:00 to 9:30 p.m. on September 10, 2016. The duration of the temporary
safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks
displays. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss the First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the temporary safety zone. The
temporary safety zone will only be in effect for 30 minutes, during
late evening hours, and covers an area of the waterway stretching less
than one mile. The Coast Guard expects minimum adverse impact to
mariners from the temporary safety zone activation as the event has
been advertised to the public. Also, mariners may request authorization
from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to transit the
temporary safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for Federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting 30 minutes that will
prohibit entry on all waters of the Tennessee River from mile 463.7 to
mile 464.5. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0722 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0722  Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Miles 463.7 to 464.5,
Chattanooga, TN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of
the Tennessee River, bank to bank, beginning at mile marker 463.7 and
ending at mile marker 464.5.
    (b) Enforcement period. This temporary safety zone will be enforced
through actual notice from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on September 10,
2016.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP)
or designated personnel. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or
pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio
channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to deviate from this safety zone
regulation and enter the restricted area must transit at the slowest
safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or
a designated representative.
    (d) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP Ohio Valley or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the temporary safety zone as
well as any changes in the date and times of enforcement

    Dated: August 31, 2016.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016-21775 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 Page 1 of 10 Previous Recommendations for the Effluent Guidelines Planning Process November, 2003 Through an informal and ongoing information collection process, the Agency has collected numerous recommendations from the States, Regions, and EPA headquarters that fall under Factor 4, " Implementation and Efficiency."

Background: Historically, part of EPA's planning process for selecting effluent guidelines for development or revision has been the consideration of information provided by stakeholders and EPA experts both through the formal comment process and through informal discussions with headquarters, regional, and state staff charged with the task of implementing effluent guidelines. Traditional sources of this information include management, NPDES permit writers, and TMDL coordinators in the Regions; state and local governments and associations including AMSA and ASIWPCA; and headquarters employees in the Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM). In the fall of 1999 and again in the spring of 2001, the EPA talked with some of these stakeholders and EPA experts to follow up on concerns and to gather recommendations regarding the effluent guidelines that the Agency might develop or revise. Their recommendations were aggregated and ranked by the frequency they were mentioned. Where an equal number of recommendations were gathered, subjects with more recent comments were given precedence. The results are summarized below for discharge categories that were recommended by two or more responders.

POTWs/ Municipal Treatment Plants Wastewater treatment facilities was one of the two the most frequently recommended subjects for an effluent guideline, with a total of nine recommendations. Many of those recommending this subject cited the need for a new guideline that would set technology based controls for nutrients, including ammonia, nitrate nitrite, and phosphorus. Metals were also identified as a concern. Treatment of sanitary wastewater was identified as an overlooked source of nutrients and resulting BOD. Improving secondary treatment regulations were discussed by almost half of those listing this concern; while a few others requested tertiary treatment requirements. At issue is the legal authority to promulgate an effluent guideline, as well as ongoing efforts within EPA's municipal program.

Petroleum Refining ( CFR 419) Concerns about discharges from petroleum refining facilities was the second of the two the most frequently recommended subjects for an effluent guideline, with a total of nine recommendations. Respondents identified the need to revise this guideline expand the list of pollutants regulated to include: 1) priority pollutants to make it consistent with OCPSF; 2) metals especially selenium; and 3) nutrients ( ammonia), BOD, and COD. The age of the guideline ( promulgated in 1982) was also cited as a cause for concern. Respondents suggested a review of BPT/ BCT/ BAT for accuracy.

Steam Electric Power Plants ( CFR 423) Concerns about discharges from power plants, most specifically steam electric power plants, was the second most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of eight recommendations. Respondents noted applicability Page 2 of 10 concerns for cogeneration units, concerns over toxic pollutants in coal pile runoff ( including mercury and selenium); and concerns about the growing use of POTW effluent as cooling water. In addition, respondents suggested revising the guideline to expand the scope, citing exempt facilities that should not be exempt and many newer facilities that are not covered. Permits for these must rely on BPJ. About 1,300 new power plants are expected, and such changes could ease the permit writing process.

Food Processing ( CFRs 405, 406, 407, 408) Concerns about discharges from food processing facilities was the third most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of seven. In general, respondents were concerned with nutrients as well as overloading of POTWs and small streams ( for direct dischargers) by conventional pollutants such as BOD. Respondents identified several specific industries as producing such problems, including seafood processing, dairies, cheese manufacturing, vegetables processing. A concern for copper was also mentioned in relation to dairies. A respondent identified the " protein technologies" industry as a category without an effluent guideline which could use one. Another respondent expressed concerns about non approved pretreatment processes, and mentioned juice manufacturing as an example.

Drinking Water Treatment ( Public Water Supply) Concerns about discharges from drinking water treatment facilities was the fourth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of five. Responders noted the need for minimum technology based guidelines, especially for TDS, TSS, pH. The chemicals used by these facilities also need to be controlled. Concerns were also raised for disposal of treatment sludges and backwash waters, especially when those discharges are sent to surface water reaches already impaired for sediment. An issue is the legal authority to promulgate an effluent guideline for this source category?

Meat Products ( CFR 432) Concerns about discharges from meat products facilities was the fifth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of five. Responders mentioned the need to revise this guideline to address concerns for nutrients, specifically the need for limits for nitrogen and ammonia. Additional concerns raised were POTWs overloaded by conventional pollutants and unregulated discharges of copper. This guideline is already in the process of revision, with a proposal published in February of 2002, and a final guideline due in December of 2003.

Coal Bed Methane Extraction ( CFR 435) Concerns about discharges from coal bed methane extraction was the sixth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of four. Responders suggested revising the oil and gas effluent guidelines to address issues arising from the extraction procedure. Although the bulk of the discharge from this activity is water, responders identified concerns for depleting aquifers, erosion, sedimentation, barium concentrations exceeded, salinization of land, adverse impact on farmers through plugging of soils which decreases infiltration, and the loss of the water's return to groundwater. Several states are affected by these activities: WY, CO, NM, AL, MT, and UT. Page 3 of 10 Ore Mining and Dressing ( CFR 440) Concerns about discharges from ore mining activities ( also referred to as hard rock mining) was the seventh most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of four. A comment suggested revising the guideline since available treatment technology is much advanced compared to that considered in the guideline. In addition, the guideline could be revised to include discharges from waste rock, spent ore, and leach material. Issues not addressed include closure/ financial assurance plans, remediation, and a definition of active vs. inactive mine. A commenter suggested revising the hard rock mining guidelines using the National Mining Team argument; which includes consideration of water budgets and closure plans.

Pulp and Paper Subcategories ( CFR 430) Concerns about discharges from pulp and paper subcategories tied with ore mining as the seventh most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of four. Responders raised concerns about discharges into smaller water bodies, and difficulties with establishing WET limits. Additional concerns were dyes and dioxin from bleaching at secondary mills and problems regulating chip mills since the stormwater regulations are not stringent enough. Phase 3 of a series of revisions to this guideline is already underway, with a final guideline due in September of 2004.

Stormwater/ Urban Runoff Concerns about stormwater and urban runoff discharges ranked as the eighth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of four. Pollutants that needed limits include oil and grease, pesticides, pathogens, metals, and sediment. The concern is that stormwater regulators cannot use WQBELs, just BMPs. Two respondents recommended defining MEP to the maximum extent possible. An issue is the legal authority to promulgate an effluent guideline for this source category?

Metal Molding and Casting ( CFR 464) Concerns about discharges from metal molding and casting ranked as the ninth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of three. Two of these recommendations were second hand, by Regional staff reporting issues in specific states ( Arkansas and Washington). Specific activities of concern including fastener manufacturing, job shop galvanizers, and jewelry manufacturing, phenol was identified as a pollutant of concern.

Aquaculture Concerns about discharges from aquaculture ( including fish farming) ranked as the tenth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of three. Pollutants of concern include nutrients ( including ammonia), medicinals, and formaldehyde. There is a new guideline already being developed for this discharge category, with a proposal published in September of 2002 and a final guideline due in June of 2004.

Ballast and Bilge Water Concerns about discharges of pollutants carried in the ballast and bilge waters of ships ranked as the eleventh most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of three. Pollutants generating this concern were oil and grease, metals, and invasive species. Page 4 of 10 Coal Mining ( CFR 434) Concerns about discharges from coal mining ranked as the twelfth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of two. No specific concerns were noted. This guideline was recently revised, with revisions promulgated in January of 2002.

Petroleum Bulk Storage Terminals Concerns about discharges from petroleum bulk storage terminals tied with coal mining as the twelfth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of two. Responders identified concerns that due to the number of facilities and the absence of an effluent guideline, permit writers must depend on BPJ, which raises consistency issues as well as being time consuming. Discharges may be primarily from collected stormwater.

Metal Finishing ( CFR 433) Concerns about discharges from metal finishing ranked as the thirteenth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of two. One responder suggested that the guideline be revised to remove phosphaters of mild steel from the scope. The other responder identified activities of concern, including fastener manufacturing, job shop galvanizers, jewelry manufacturing. As part of the recently completed Metal Products and Machinery rulemaking project ( February, 2003), EPA did a full review of the Electroplating and Metal Finishing guidelines and determined that revised effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards were not warranted ( due to economic achievability concerns or the small toxic pollutant removals as compared to the costs).

Mineral Mining and Processing ( CFR 436) Concerns about discharges from mineral mining tied with metal finishing as the thirteenth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of two. Concerns about the mineral mining and processing guideline suggested the need for more complete guidelines, including the addition of TSS limits and also that the existing guidelines were inconsistently applied.

Airports Deicing Concerns about discharges from airport deicing activities ranked fourteenth most frequently recommended subject for an effluent guideline, with a total of two. Responders suggested that a new guideline be developed as a way to level the playing field as well as to ease the burden on permit writers, since modeling oxygen demand is very time consuming. A study on this discharge category was completed in 1999. At that time, the industry was initiating activities to reduce the toxicity of deicing fluids, and many airports were still in the process of upgrading their strategies for managing deicing runoff to meet their permit requirements for the year 2000. Page 5 of 10 RECOMMENDED BY EPA/ STATES/ PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS Rank Industry 1999 2001 Total 1 ( TIE) MUNICIPAL/ SANITARY WASTEWATER; SECONDARY/ TERTIARY TREATMENT AT POTWS SIC 4952 3 6 9 1 ( TIE) PETROLEUM REFINING ( CFR 419) SIC 2911 3 6 9 2 STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS ( CFR 423) SIC 4911 1 7 8 3 FOOD PROCESSING ( CFR 405, 406, 407, 408) INCLU. SICS 2091, 2092 1 6 7 4 DRINKING WATER FACILITIES ( PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY) 0 5 5 5 MEAT PRODUCTS ( CFR432) 3 2 5 6 COAL BED METHANE ( CFR 435) INCLUDES SIC 1311 0 4 4 7 ( TIE) ORE MINING AND DRESSING ( HARD ROCK MINING) ( CFR 440) 1 3 4 7 ( TIE) PULP & PAPER SUBCATEGORIES ( CFR 430) INCLUDES SICS 2611, 2621, 2631 1 3 4 8 STORMWATER / URBAN RUNOFF 2 2 4 9 METAL MOLDING & CASTING ( 464) 1 2 3 10 AQUACULTURE 2 1 3 11 BALLAST AND BILGE WATER 3 0 3 12 ( TIE) COAL MINING ( CFR 434) 0 2 2 12 ( TIE) PETROLEUM BULK STORAGE 0 2 2 13 ( TIE) METAL FINISHING ( CFR 433) 1 1 2 13 ( TIE) MINERAL MINING ( CFR 436) 1 1 2 14 AIRPORTS/ DEICING 2 0 2 Page 6 of 10 1999 and 2001 RECOMMENDATIONS SORTED BY CATEGORY RECOMMENDED BY EPA/ STATES/ PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS Rank Industry 1999 2001 Total 1 ( tie) Municipal/ sanitary wastewater; secondary/ tertiary treatment at POTWs SIC 4952 3 6 9 State: Louisiana Gary Aydell sanitary wastewater ( kitchen and bathroom contributions to wastewater) for nutrients, BOD; secondary treatment of sanitary effluent for dischargers to smaller rivers, need effluent limits for ammonia, nitrate nitrite, and phosphorus ( not double counted) Region: I William Beckwith secondary treatment requirements for POTWs nutrients Region: III Allison Wiedeman municipal treatment plants nutrients and toxic persistent metals Region: III Thomas Maslany POTWs nutrient effluent standards Region: III Brian Trulear secondary water treatment part 133, problems with 85% removal rate Region: IX Douglas Liden tertiary treatment to POTWs nutrient, TSS removal; BAT for metals and BCC Region: IX Robyn Stuber tertiary guidelines for POTWs EPA HQ: OWM Rob Wood secondary treatment regulations EPA HQ: OWM Rob Wood municipal waste treatment facilities tech based controls for nutrients 1 ( tie) Petroleum Refining ( CFR 419) SIC 2911 3 6 9 State: Louisiana Gary Aydell petroleum refineries specifically to include priority pollutants like OCPSF and lower BOD/ COD limits State: Oklahoma Kendra Foyil petroleum refineries ammonia concerns Region: III Allison Wiedeman petroleum refining per Pennsylvania contact Region: VI Jack Ferguson oil refineries  these guidelines are old, and do not cover some pollutants Region: VI Ed McHam petroleum refining review BPT/ BCT/ BAT accuracy, need controls on priority pollutants Region: IX Keith Silva oil refineries metals, especially selenium Region: X Sharon Wilson petroleum refining large facilities discharging into small POTWs, problems in Alaska with sulfolane ( ask CA, also!) EPA HQ: OWM Benita Best Wong petroleum refining VP's initiative RECOMMENDED BY EPA/ STATES/ PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS Rank Industry 1999 2001 Total Page 7 of 10 2 Steam Electric Power Plants ( CFR 423) SIC 4911 1 7 8 State: Louisiana Gary Aydell steam electric cogeneration units ( applicability) State: Michigan Brenda Sayles steam electric power plants toxics in coal pile runoff: Hg, Se State: Oklahoma Kendra Foyil steam electric chlorine, combined cycle & cooling tower blowdown, using POTW effluent for cooling waters Region: IV Marshall Hyatt, Connie Kagey, Karrie Joe Shell power plants Region: VI Jack Ferguson steam electric  some facilities are exempt that shouldn't be Region: VI Phillip Jennings power plants using POTW effluent as cooling water Region: VI Ed McHam electrical services many newer facilities not covered, permits must rely on BPJ EPA HQ: OWM Benita Best Wong steam electric power plants VP's initiative; 1,300 new power plants expected; need to ease permits process 3 Food Processing inclu. 2091, 2092 1 6 7 State: Louisiana Gary Aydell seafood processing facilities  high BOD loads into low DO waters; discharging to smaller rivers State: Oklahoma Kendra Foyil protein technologies not covered in food related ELGs Region: III Thomas Maslany food mfr nutrient effluent standards Region: III Brian Trulear food industry e. g. Wise Potato Chips; expressed as concentrations, consistent with biological treatment systems, instead of lb/ 1000 lb; technology better than limits, but industry uses ELG limits to avoid BPJ Region: V Carol Staniec food processing POTWs overloaded by conventionals ( specifically dairies, cheese, vegetables) Region: VIII Curt McCormick food processing concerns about non approved pretreatment processes; includes juice mfr., cheese factories, copper in the dairy lagoons Region: X Sharon Wilson food processing small POTWs overloaded by conventional pollutants, specifically dairies RECOMMENDED BY EPA/ STATES/ PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS Rank Industry 1999 2001 Total Page 8 of 10 4 Drinking Water Facilities ( Public Water Supply) 0 5 5 Region: III Brian Trulear drinking water treatment draft guidelines never finalized Region: VI Jack Ferguson drinking water supply  the chemicals in use need to be controlled. Region: VI Ed McHam public water supply treatment plants need minimum technology based guidelines, esp for TDS, TSS, pH. Region: VII Michael Turvey drinking water treatment plants disposal of treatment sludges & backwash waters EPA HQ: OWOW Todd Dabolt drinking water facilities discharges to reaches impaired for sediment 5 Meat Products ( CFR 432) 3 2 5 Region: III Allison Wiedeman food processors, esp. ag. animals  chicken, hogs, especially nutrients, nitrogen Region: V Carol Staniec slaughterhouses POTWs overloaded by conventional pollutants Region: VII John Dunn beef packers  to cut ammonia discharges Region: VIII Bruce Kent meat products  for ammonia/ nitrogen limits Region: VIII Curt McCormick slaughterhouses  copper issues 6 Coal Bed Methane ( CFR 435) 1311 0 4 4 State: Wyoming Mike Read coal bed methane moderate concern  salinity, plugging soils and preventing return of water to groundwater Region: VIII Carol Campbell coal bed methane revise oil and gas ELGs; depleting aquifers, erosion, sedimentation, barium concentrations exceeded, salinization of land, adverse impact on farmers Region: VIII Bruce Kent coal bed methane revise oil and gas ELGs? depleting aquifers, salinization of land, adverse impact on farmers Citizens Group: Wyoming Outdoor Council coal bed methane depletion of aquifers, salinity impacting soils/ vegetation and decreasing infiltration; affects several states: WY, CO, NM, AL, MT, UT RECOMMENDED BY EPA/ STATES/ PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS Rank Industry 1999 2001 Total Page 9 of 10 7 ( tie) Ore Mining and Dressing ( Hard Rock Mining) ( CFR 440) 1 3 4 State: Wyoming Mike Read hard rock mining waste rock, closure ( financial assurance) Region: VIII Carol Campbell hard rock mining revise using National Mining Team argument; specifically water budgets and closure plans Region: VIII Bruce Kent hard rock mining technology has outstripped ELG; closure plans; ore mining and dressing  WQ based limits, treatment technology much advanced. ELG did not include waste rock, spent ore, and leach material, remediation, definition of active vs. inactive mine. ( Not double counted) EPA HQ: OWM Benita Best Wong hard rock mining 7 ( tie) Pulp & Paper Subcategories ( CFR 430) includes SICs 2611, 2621, 2631 1 3 4 State: Louisiana Gary Aydell paper mills on small water bodies State: South Carolina Andrew Yasinsac paper mills most mills have WQ limits on DO as BOD5, some on ammonia; establishing WET limits procedures very difficult Region: IV Marshall Hyatt, Connie Kagey, Karrie Joe Shell remainder of pulp and paper dyes and dioxin from bleaching at secondary mills Region: IV Marshall Hyatt, Connie Kagey, Karrie Joe Shell chip mills problems regulating; using stormwater regulations, not stringent enough 8 stormwater / urban runoff 2 2 4 Region: IX Douglas Liden stormwater Region: IX Catherine Kuhlman urban runoff/ stormwater  NPDES dischargers ( oil and grease, pesticides, pathogens, metals, sediment); stormwater cannot use WQBELs, just BMPs Region: IX Robyn Stuber stormwater define MEP to the maximum extent possible Region: IX Terry Oda stormwater establish MEP 9 Metal Molding & Casting ( CFR 464) 1 2 3 Region: VI Lee Boehme metal molding and casting ( CFR 464) ( re: Allan Gilliam in AR DEQ) Region: IX Keith Silva metal molding and casting  fastener manufacturing, job shop galvanizers, jewelry manufacturing Region: X Sharon Wilson metal molding and casting ( CFR 464) phenol problem ( re: David Knight in WA Dept. of Ecology) RECOMMENDED BY EPA/ STATES/ PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS Rank Industry 1999 2001 Total Page 10 of 10 10 Aquaculture 2 1 3 Region: III Allison Wiedeman aquaculture  nutrients, medicinals, formaldehyde Region: IX Douglas Liden fish hatcheries Region: IX Robyn Stuber offshore fishing operations net pen operators ( ammonia); also a problem with Regions 2,4,6, and 10 11 ballast and bilge water 3 0 3 Region: IX Douglas Liden ballast water discharges Region: IX Keith Silva bilge water  oily, metal bearing waste stream EPA HQ: OWOW Suzanne Schwartz ballast water invasive species as pollutants 12 ( tie) Coal Mining ( CFR 434) 0 2 2 Region: IV Marshall Hyatt, Connie Kagey, Karrie Joe Shell coal mines EPA HQ: OWM Benita Best Wong coal mining 12 ( tie) Petroleum bulk storage 0 2 2 Region: VI Ed McHam petroleum bulk storage a lot of facilities, permit writers must depend on BPJ, consistency issue, time consuming Region: VII Michael Turvey petroleum tank farms particularly for collected stormwater 13 ( tie) Metal Finishing ( CFR 433) 1 1 2 Region: VIII Curt McCormick metal finishing phosphaters of mild steel  should be removed from the scope Region: IX Keith Silva metal finishing  fastener manufacturing, job shop galvanizers, jewelry manufacturing 13 ( tie) Mineral Mining 1 1 2 State: Maryland Edward Stone mineral mining need more complete ELGs Region: III Brian Trulear mineral mines existing guidelines inconsistently applied, ELG has pH limits only, needs TSS limits 14 Airports ( Deicing Operations) 2 0 2 State: Maryland Edward Stone airports to level the playing field State: Michigan Brenda Sayles airport deicing modeling oxygen demand very time consuming