[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50722-50723]
[DOCID:fr28au08-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0810]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Petaluma River, Petaluma, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
``D'' Street Drawbridge across the Petaluma River, mile 13.7, at
Petaluma, CA. The deviation is necessary to conduct maintenance. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on September 3, 2008
through 7 p.m. on November 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0810 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Commander
(dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard
Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Petaluma requested a temporary
change to the operation of the ``D'' Street Drawbridge. The ``D''
Street Drawbridge's navigation span provides 7 feet of vertical
clearance, at Mean High Water, in the closed-to-navigation position.
The drawspan opens on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given for
openings from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and if at least 24-hours notice is
given for openings from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position,
from 6 a.m. on September 3, 2008 through 7 p.m. on November 14, 2008,
to allow the City of Petaluma to conduct needed maintenance, which
includes; trunion pin replacement, deck resurfacing, and painting of
the entire structure. To facilitate the maintenance, the contractor
will install scaffolding beneath the bridge deck, reducing the vertical
clearance provided for by the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position, by 5 feet.
    From September through November, 2005-2007, the drawspan averaged
294 openings for vessels. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with waterway users. There will be no impact to commercial waterway
users, no dredging is scheduled during this deviation period, and the
City of Petaluma Visitors Bureau has been informing recreational
waterway users of the maintenance. No objections to the proposed
temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
    In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 24
days advance notice.
    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: August 19, 2008.
P.F. Zukunft,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-19991 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29846-29847]
[DOCID:fr22my08-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2007-0056]

Pipeline Safety: Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice
of Request for Extension of Currently Approved Information Collection

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice invites public comments about PHMSA's intention to
request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for
renewal of four existing information collections. These information
collections are described below.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854
and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: DOT Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Operations Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, 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.
    Instructions: In the E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov,
under ``Search Documents'' select ``Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration.'' Next, select ``Notices,'' and then click
``Submit.'' Select this notice by clicking on the docket number listed
above. Submit your comment by clicking the yellow bubble in the right
column then following the instructions.
    Identify docket ID PHMSA-2007-0056 at the beginning of your
comments. For comments by mail, please provide two copies. To receive
PHMSA's confirmation receipt, include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. Internet users may access all comments at http://
www.regulations.gov, by following the steps above.

    Note: PHMSA will post all comments without changes or edits to
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting
the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Betsock, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30), Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202)
366-4595.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies
information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB
for renewal and extension. These information collections are contained
in the pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190-199. PHMSA has
revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current
reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final
rules published since the information collections were last approved.
The following information is provided for each information collection:
(1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3)
abstract of the information collection activity; (4) description of
affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for each information collection
activity.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
    1. Title: Pipeline Safety: Excess Flow Valves--Customer
Notification.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0593.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Pipeline operators are required to provide notifications
about excess flow valves to service line customers as described in 49
CFR 192.383. Upon request, an operator must make documentation of
compliance available to PHMSA or the appropriate State regulatory
agency.
    Estimated number of respondents: 900,000.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 18,000 hours.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    2. Title: Pipeline Safety: Customer-Owned Service Lines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0594.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Operators of gas service lines who do not maintain
certain buried piping of their customers must provide notification
about maintenance to those customers (49 CFR 192.16). Upon request, an
operator must make documentation of compliance available to PHMSA or
the appropriate State regulatory agency.
    Estimated number of respondents: 550,000.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 9,167 hours.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    3. Title: Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Safety,
Training.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0600.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Pipeline operators are required to have continuing
programs for qualifying and training personnel performing safety-
sensitive functions on pipelines. (49 CFR part 192, subpart N and 49
CFR part 195, subpart G. Operators must maintain records, make

reports, and provide information to PHMSA and State pipeline safety
agencies concerning these programs. The information aids Federal and
State pipeline safety inspectors in conducting compliance inspections
and investigating incidents.
    Estimated number of respondents: 22,300.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 466,667 hours.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    4. Title: Pipeline Safety Report of Abandoned Underwater Pipelines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0601.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Pipeline operators are required to report certain
information about abandoned underwater pipelines to PHMSA. The
information aids Federal and State pipeline safety inspectors in
conducting compliance inspections and investigating incidents.
    Estimated number of respondents: 10.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 60 hours.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 19, 2008.
Barbara Betsock,
Acting Director of Regulations.
[FR Doc. E8-11540 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27910-27912]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0157; FRL-9979-32--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a
revision to the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP). Wisconsin
has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule. Wisconsin has also provided a determination of the adequacy of
its regional haze plan with the progress report.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0157. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886-6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

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

I. Background
II. What is EPA's response to the comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to periodically submit a progress report that
evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for
each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are
also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years
after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012. EPA
approved Wisconsin's regional haze plan into its SIP on August 7, 2012
(77 FR 46952). Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on
March 17, 2017. This is a report on the implementation of the regional
haze plan and the progress made in the first implementation period
towards RPGs for Class I areas outside of Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not
have any Class I areas within its borders where visibility is an
important value. This progress report SIP included a determination that
Wisconsin's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision
to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and
emissions reduction goals for 2018 for Class I areas impacted by
Wisconsin emissions. EPA is approving Wisconsin's progress report on
the basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of the rule at
40 CFR 51.308.
    EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) on October 20, 2017 (82 FR
48766), approving the Wisconsin regional haze progress report as a
revision to the Wisconsin SIP, along with a proposed rule (82 FR
48780), that provided a 30-day public comment period. The DFR evaluated
the Wisconsin submittal assessing its progress in implementing its
regional haze plan during the first half of the first implementation
period as well as the statutory and regulatory background for EPA's
review of Wisconsin's regional haze plan. The DFR also provided a
description of the regional haze requirements addressed in the
Wisconsin progress report. The DFR serves as the detailed basis for
this action. The adverse comments that EPA received are addressed
below.

II. What is EPA's response to the comments?

    EPA received two relevant comments on the DFR. One commenter
supported the approval of the regional haze 5-year progress report SIP.
A second commenter expressed concern over Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) issues and measures not approved into the SIP. We address
the second commenter's concerns here.
    Comment--The commenter argued that EPA cannot approve the Wisconsin
regional haze 5-year progress report because the State must revise its
regional haze SIP to replace reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) and CSAPR with reliance on the ``CSAPR Update.'' The commenter
stated that as CAIR and CSAPR are no longer in effect, these rules
cannot be relied on for achieving reasonable progress goals, and that
states cannot rely on federal implementation plans (FIPs) as measures
must be contained in the SIP. The commenter also claimed that Wisconsin
is taking credit for consent decrees, an Administrative Order on
Consent for Georgia Pacific that is not approved into the SIP, and
limits in title V permits that are not approved into the SIP. The
commenter argued that because such measures are not federally
enforceable, Wisconsin cannot take credit for them in its regional haze
SIP. The commenter also argued that EPA cannot allow states to rely on
trading programs to meet the source specific requirements for best
available retrofit technology (BART).
    EPA's Response--In its regional haze SIP, Wisconsin relied on
participation in CSAPR to satisfy certain of the BART requirements for
its subject electric generating units and to satisfy reasonable
progress requirements for these sources. In its progress report,
Wisconsin notes that significant contribution towards reasonable
progress has been made through implementation of CAIR and CSAPR in the
State. Although EPA promulgated CSAPR on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by several court
actions. EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015, and CSAPR is
now in force. The commenter, however, argues that because CSAPR has
been recently modified, ''CSAPR'' as referenced in the EPA-approved
Wisconsin BART SIP element is no longer in effect. Similarly, the
commenter also states that because CAIR is no longer in effect, the
State may not rely on CAIR to achieve reasonable progress goals.

    EPA disagrees with the commenter for several reasons. First,
although CAIR is no longer in effect, it was in effect during part of
the time period addressed by the progress report. Thus, Wisconsin
appropriately described reductions from CAIR in summarizing the
emissions reductions achieved during the initial years of the first
implementation period. Second, contrary to the commenter's assertion,
CSAPR remains in effect and will continue to result in emissions
reductions in Wisconsin and other states subject to the rule. The D.C.
Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects in 2015. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In that
decision, the court remanded, without vacating, some of the CSAPR
budgets for a number of states. At this point, however, EPA has now
taken all actions necessary to respond to that remand, and Wisconsin
remains subject to CSAPR following EPA's actions. We also note that on
September 29, 2017, EPA finalized a determination that the changes to
the scope of CSAPR coverage following our actions on the remand do not
alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains better-than-BART. (82 FR
45481). Accordingly, we do not agree that Wisconsin erred in relying on
CAIR and CSAPR in its progress report for ensuring the necessary
emission reductions.
    We also do not agree that States may not rely on FIPs in
considering whether a regional haze implementation plan is sufficient
to achieve the reasonable progress goals for nearby Class I areas. The
Regional Haze Rule defines ``implementation plan'' for purposes of the
visibility program to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation
Plan.''. 40 CFR 51.301. Given this, measures in any issued FIP as well
as those in a state's regional haze plan may be relied on in assessing
the adequacy of the ``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(6) and (h).
    The commenter also stated that Wisconsin is inappropriately taking
credit in its progress report for consent decrees, an Administrative
Consent Order for Georgia Pacific, and title V permits, none of which,
the commenter claimed, are approved into the SIP. Again, we disagree
with this comment for several reasons. First, with respect to Georgia
Pacific, Wisconsin does describe the Administrative Consent Order for
the source as a key element of its regional haze SIP; however, the
Administrative Consent Order is incorporated by reference into the SIP.
See 40 CFR 52.2570(c)(124)(i)(A). Second, it is unclear for which other
consent decrees or title V permits Wisconsin is ``taking credit'' or in
what way, but states in general are required to consider emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs in developing
a long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Given this, it is
appropriate for a state to include a discussion in the progress report
of the status of measures the state relied on in developing its long-
term strategy.
    Finally, the regulations governing progress reports do not include
a requirement for states (or EPA) to ensure that all applicable
regional haze requirements for the planning period have been met by the
existing plan. As such, the comment raising concerns about the reliance
on a regional trading program to satisfy the BART requirement raises
issues outside the scope of this rulemaking. We do note, however, that
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) explicitly allows a state to rely on participation
in a CSAPR FIP to address the BART requirements for electric generating
units (EGUs). See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d 714,
721 (D.C. Cir. 2018)(upholding CSAPR as a BART alternative); see also
National Parks Conservation Association v. McCarthy, 816 F.3d 989 (8th
Cir. 2016).
    In summary, EPA disagrees that the points raised by the commenter
prevent approval of the progress report EPA finds that Wisconsin's
progress report satisfies 40 CFR 51.308.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the Wisconsin regional haze progress report under
the CAA as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. EPA finds that Wisconsin
has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule. Wisconsin has also met the requirements for a determination of
the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration
submitted with the progress report.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 4, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2593 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2593  Visibility protection.

    (a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on
January 18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. The Wisconsin regional
haze plan meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169B and the
Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.
    (b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on
March 17, 2017. The Progress Report meets the requirements of Clean Air
Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.

[FR Doc. 2018-12810 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65115-65116]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27457]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0828; FRL-9988-09-Region 7]

Approval of Operating Permits Program; Kansas; Reporting Emission
Data, Emission Fees and Process Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Operating Permits Program for the State of
Kansas submitted on January 22, 2018. The revised Kansas rules
reorganize, clarify, and update the Class I emission fee, application
fee, and emissions inventory regulations and ensure that Kansas's
Operating Permits Program is adequately funded. Approval of these
revisions ensures consistency between the State and federally-approved
rules and does not impact air quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2018-0828 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. Background
III. What is being addressed in this document?
IV. Have the requirements for approval of a Part 70 revision been
met?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2018-
0828, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

    EPA granted full approval of the Kansas Operating Permit Program
effective February 29, 1996. See 61 FR 2938. Under title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 70.9(a) and (b), an approved state's title V
operating permits program must require that the owners or operators of
part 70 sources pay annual fees, or the equivalent over some other
period, that are sufficient to cover the permit program costs and
ensure that any fee required under 40 CFR 70.9 is used solely for
permit program costs. The fee schedule must result in the collection
and retention of revenues sufficient to cover the permit program
implementation and oversight costs.
    Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) 65-3024 establishes the Air Quality
Fee Fund and authorizes the Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE) to fix, charge and collect annual
emissions fees in amounts necessary to administer the Kansas Air
Quality Act. The Secretary also has the authority to periodically
increase or decrease such fees, as needed.
    Kansas has determined that it has experienced shortfalls in its
title V annual emission fee revenues in recent years, due to emission
reductions at major facilities. It has determined that fee adjustments
are needed to offset the effect of declining revenues and to maintain
the Kansas Air Quality program overall. The proposed increases in fees
will aid in offsetting the effect of declining revenue and in
maintaining the title V fee schedule and the Kansas Air Quality program
overall. Projections of program needs for fiscal year 2019 and beyond
indicate that resources adequate for effective implementation of the
program will not be available without the proposed amendments. The
amendments are needed to update the Class I Operating Permit fee
schedule to bring in sufficient revenue to adequately administer the
Kansas Air Quality Act, specifically to adequately administer the Class
I Operating Permit program. Thus, Kansas has submitted this program
revision for review and action by the EPA.

III. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Operating Permits
Program for the State of Kansas submitted to the EPA on January 22,
2018. Revisions to the program include revoking Kansas Administrative
Regulation (K.A.R.) 28-19-202; adding new language to K.A.R. 28-19-517
which parallels language in the revoked K.A.R. 28-19-202; increasing
the annual emission fee from $37 dollars per ton to $53 dollars per
ton; increasing all application fees in K.A.R. 28-19-516; establishing
a baseline emission fee; and adding additional clarifications to the
Program to address fees, refunds, electronic submittal, and who is
required to submit an annual emissions inventory.

IV. Have the requirements for approval of a Part 70 revision been met?

    The state provided a public comment period for this Operating
Permits Program revision from September 7, 2017, to November 15, 2017,
and received comments. In response to the comments, Kansas revised the
rule prior to submitting to the EPA. The revisions are consistent with
applicable EPA requirements in title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kansas Operating
Program by approving the State's request to revoke K.A.R. 28-19-202,
Annual emissions fees; and to amend K.A.R. 28-19-516, Class I operating
permits, application fees; and K.A.R. 28-19-517, Class I operating
permits, annual emissions inventory and fees. Approval of these
revisions will ensure consistency between the state and federally-
approved rules. EPA has determined that these changes will not
adversely impact air emissions. Additional information on the the EPA's
analysis can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) included
in this docket.
    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of
any comments.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because Title V approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This proposed approval of the revision to Kansas's Title V
Operating Permit Program does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 14, 2018.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 70 as set forth below:

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend appendix A to part 70 by adding new paragraph (g) under Kansas
to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Kansas

* * * * *
    (g) The Kansas Department of Health and Environment submitted
revisions to Kansas rules K.A.R. 28-19-202, K.A.R. 28-19-516, and
K.A.R. 28-19-517, on January 22, 2018. The state effective date is
January 5, 2018. This revision is effective [date 60 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-27457 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3518-3519]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                     (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet       Communities affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in  meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Venango County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny River........................  Approximately 860 feet                  +880  Borough of Emlenton.
                                          upstream of I-80.
                                         At the Sandy Creek                      +949  Township of Clinton,
                                          confluence.                                   Township of Richland,
                                                                                Township of Rockland,
                                                                                Township of Scrubgrass,
                                                                                Township of Victory.
East Sandy Creek.......................  Approximately 460 feet                  +961  Township of Rockland.
                                          upstream of the
                                          Allegheny River
                                          confluence.
                                         Approximately 1,000 feet                +961
                                          upstream of the
                                          Allegheny River
                                          confluence.
Sugar Creek............................  Approximately 0.79 mile                +1201  Township of Plum.
                                          downstream of
                                          Bradleytown Road.
                                         Approximately 0.78 mile                +1201
                                          downstream of
                                          Bradleytown Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
Borough of Emlenton
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 511 Hill Street, Emlenton, PA 16373.

Township of Clinton
Maps are available for inspection at the Clinton Township Building, 123 Donaldson Road, Kennerdell, PA 16374.

Township of Plum
Maps are available for inspection at the Plum Township Building, 2360 Sunville Road, Cooperstown, PA 16317.

Township of Richland
Maps are available for inspection at the Richland Township Building, 1740 Rockland Nickleville Road, Emlenton,
 PA 16373.

Township of Rockland
Maps are available for inspection at the Rockland Township Building, 1115 Rockland Township Road, Kennerdell, PA
 16374.

Township of Scrubgrass
Maps are available for inspection at the Scrubgrass Township Office, 4976 Emlenton-Clintonville Road, Emlenton,
 PA 16373.

Township of Victory
Maps are available for inspection at the Victory Township Municipal Building, 2794 Old Route 8, Polk, PA 16342.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Date: December 18, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-01151 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25908-25909]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0137; Notice 1]

Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products, Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products, a business division
of Arconic, Inc., formerly known as Alcoa, Inc. (Arconic), has
determined that certain Alcoa aluminum wheels do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire Selection
and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying
Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds). Alcoa, Inc. filed a noncompliance
information report dated November 21, 2016. Arconic then petitioned
NHTSA on December 5, 2016, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products (Arconic),
has determined that certain Alcoa aluminum wheels do not fully comply
with paragraph S5.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle
Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Alcoa, Inc. filed a
noncompliance information report dated November 21, 2016, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Arconic then petitioned NHTSA on December 5, 2016, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.

    This notice of receipt of Arconic's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Equipment Involved: Approximately 1,975 Alcoa model 88367X
aluminum wheels, size 22.5'' Dia. x 8.25'', produced for the heavy duty
truck wheel market, and manufactured between August 1, 2016, and
November 7, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Arconic explains that the noncompliance is that
the wheel diameter was incorrectly marked on the subject wheels as
24.5'' x 8.25'', when it should have been marked as 22.5'' x 8.25''.
This marking error overstates the wheel diameter by 2''. Therefore, the
subject wheels do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of
FMVSS No. 120.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120 states in
pertinent part:

    S5.2 Rim marking. Each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer
in the case of a single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with
the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
paragraph, in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, impressed
to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to a
height of not less than 0.125 millimeters . . .
    (b) The rim size designation, and in case of multipiece rims,
the rim type designation. For example: 20x5.50, or 20x5.5.

    V. Summary of Arconic's Petition: Arconic described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Arconic submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. If the mounting technician relied solely on the incorrectly
stated 24.5'' diameter stamped on the rim and tried to mount a 24.5'' x
8.25'' tire, the tire will not inflate. Therefore, it would be obvious
to the mounting technician that there is a tire/rim mismatch, because
the air will immediately escape during inflation and no tire/rim seal
will ever be achieved. Heavy-duty truck rim diameter sizes in the U.S.
market are in increments 19.5'', 22.5'' and 24.5'', so any tire
diameter other than 22.5'' will simply not mount and/or inflate on the
mismarked 24.5'' rim.
    2. All product literature that accompanies the mislabeled 24.5'' x
8.25'' aluminum wheels correctly identifies the wheel as having a
22.5'' diameter. The part number stamped on the wheels correctly
associates the wheels in catalogs (hard copy and electronic) as having
a 22.5'' diameter. The vast majority of the affected wheels were sold
for assembly on new heavy-duty semi-tractors and it is believed the
certification label, tire pressure placard and all other literature
accompanying the vehicle correctly states the required wheel diameter
as 22.5''.
    3. The vast majority of the affected wheels were sold for assembly
on new heavy-duty semi-tractors, which means the selection of tires and
wheels during assembly does not require reliance on the actual size
markings on the wheel. Rather, this selection is based upon part number
matching during the tire/wheel subassembly process, and the part number
descriptions correctly reflect the actual wheel size of 22.5'' x
8.25''. Only one manufacturer, a trailer manufacturer, actually noticed
the mismarking of the rim diameter. The remaining manufacturers that
undertook tire and rim assembly were unaffected by rim mismarking.
    4. If a vehicle owner or operator must replace one of the affected
rims they would most likely go to a facility that is familiar with
tire/wheel replacements for heavy-duty trucks. Pursuant to 29 CFR
1910.177(c) (Employee Training), federal regulations require that only
trained technicians are permitted to mount tires and wheels on heavy-
duty vehicles and it should be obvious to the technician when a wheel
marking is overstated by 2''.
    5. For rims that have an obvious incorrect size marking stamped
into the wheel, the technician will have to rely on another source for
the correct rim size including, when applicable, the certification
label, tire pressure placard or any other literature to determine the
correct wheel and tire size for the replacement.
    6. Because a tire/rim seal cannot be achieved with an overstated
2'' rim diameter, there is no risk to the technician during attempted
tire mounting operations.
    7. All other roll stamp rim marking information on the subject rims
required by S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 is correct. The rim is marked with
the correct rim width, manufacturer, date of manufacture, and DOT.
    8. The agency has previously found to be inconsequential a
noncompliance with the rim marking requirements of FMVSS No. 110 Tire
selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load
carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less (citing Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6685,
July 5, 2000).
    9. Arconic is not aware of any crashes or injuries associated with
this roll stamp rim marking issue.
    Arconic states that they have corrected the roll stamp for all
future production.
    Arconic concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject wheels that Arconic no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant wheels under their control after Arconic
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-11525 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Subject: NSR Under Consideration with CALPINE Corp. Meeting Date: 10/ 27/ 2005 Time: 3: 00   3: 40 pm Location: Ariel Rios North 5400, Washington, DC Name: Organization Racqueline Shelton ( via the phone) EPA/ OAR Bill Wehrum EPA/ OAR Stacey Coburn EPA/ OAR Jason M. Goodwin , Director, Safety, Health and Environment CALPINE Peggy Duxbury, Vice President,

Environmental and Government Affairs CALPINE Jeanne Connelly, Senior Vice President,

Government Affairs CALPINE Richard Kanoff , Regional Counsel CALPINE Bob Meyers EPA/ OAR


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36928-36929]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2014-E-2351, FDA-2014-E-2352, and FDA-2014-E-2350]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; ALPROLIX

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for ALPROLIX and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of patents which claim that human biological product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August
8, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 5, 2016.
See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos.
FDA-2014-E-2351, FDA-2014-E-2352, and FDA-2014-E-2350 for
``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; ALPROLIX.''
    Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets

Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be
made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover
sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human biological product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval
phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product ALPROLIX
(Coagulation Factor IX (Recombinant), Fc Fusion Protein). ALPROLIX is a
recombinant DNA derived, coagulation Factor IX concentrate indicated in
adults and children with hemophilia B for control and prevention of
bleeding episodes, perioperative management, and routine prophylaxis to
prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes. Subsequent to
this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications
for ALPROLIX (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,348,004, 7,862,820, and 8,329,182)
from Biogen Idec Hemophilia Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's
assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term
restoration. In a letter dated May 11, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that
this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of ALPROLIX represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO
requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
ALPROLIX is 2,223 days. Of this time, 1,767 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 456 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: February
27, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective was on
February 27, 2008.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262): December 28, 2012. FDA has verified the
applicant's claim that the biologics license application (BLA) for
ALPROLIX (BLA 125444/0) was initially submitted on December 28, 2012.
    3. The date the application was approved: March 28, 2014. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that BLA 125444/0 was approved on March
28, 2014.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,326 days, 465 days, or 818, days, respectively,
of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: June 2, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-13526 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48539-48540]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation
Medical Examiner Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on May 20, 2013, vol. 78, no. 97, page 29427. This collection
is necessary in order to determine applicants' qualifications for
certification as Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 9, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0604.
    Title: Aviation Medical Examiner Program.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8520-2.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR Part 183 describes the requirements for
delegating to private physicians the authority to conduct physical
examinations on persons wishing to apply for their airmen medical
certificate. This collection of information is for the purpose of
obtaining essential information concerning the applicants' professional
and personal qualifications. The FAA uses the information to screen and
select the designees who serve as aviation medical examiners.
    Respondents: Approximately 450 applicants annually.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 225 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to

enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 2, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-19194 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 8701]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03178]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9906-69-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) approval of the City of Grand Rapids' request to revise its
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective February 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving electronic
reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a
revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval.
Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration
of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or
local government will use to implement the electronic reporting.
Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D
provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to
allow electronic reporting to be used at the option of the state, tribe
or local government in place of procedures available under existing
program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted
under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local
government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic
reporting components of the programs covered by the application and
will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable
subpart D requirements.
    On October 23, 2012, the City of Grand Rapids Environmental
Services Department (Grand Rapids ESD) submitted an application titled
``LinkoExchange System'' for revision of its EPA-authorized authorized
part 403 program under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed Grand Rapids ESD's
request to revise its EPA-authorized part 403--General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution program and,
based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the
standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR
part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of
EPA's decision to approve Grand Rapids ESD's request to revise its Part
403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 403
is being published in the Federal Register.
    Grand Rapids ESD was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
Andrew Battin,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2014-03178 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61332]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25948]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 210

[Release No. 33-9929A; 34-75985A; IC-31849A; File No. S7-20-15]
RIN 3235-AL77

Request for Comment on the Effectiveness of Financial Disclosures
About Entities Other Than the Registrant

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in
the Federal Register of October 1, 2015, seeking public comment
regarding the financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-X for
certain entities other than a registrant. The RIN was omitted from this
document. This correction is being published to add the RIN to that
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd E. Hardiman, Associate Chief
Accountant, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Corporation Finance; Duc
Dang, Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of the Chief
Accountant; or Matthew Giordano, Chief Accountant, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 1, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-24875,
on page 59083, in the second column, in the heading of the document,
the RIN is added to read as 3235-AL77.

    Dated: October 7, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25948 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 74991]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24098]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-57-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Penalty Revenue Sharing 2023
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20231026-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-58-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 4(d) Rate Filing: 10.26.23 Negotiated Rates--Emera
Energy Services, Inc. R-2715-88 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20231026-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-59-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--EQT 911915 and
911916 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20231026-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 26, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24098 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P