[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48261]
[DOCID:fr22se09-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1677-000]

Big Sky Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

September 10, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Big Sky Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 29, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22728 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38313]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14527-000]

Kings River Conservation District; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

    On June 3, 2013, the Kings River Conservation District filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Gould Weir Hydroelectric
Project, to be located on the Kings River, near the city of Sanger, in
Fresno County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The applicant is considering two alternatives for this proposed
project. The first option would include the installation of facilities
immediately downstream of the existing Gould weir. The second option
would include the installation of facilities in a bypass channel
adjacent to Gould weir. Based on a reconnaissance-level study of the
site performed in 2002, the project could have an installed capacity of
0.96 megawatt and an estimated average annual generation of 4.4
gigawatt-hours utilizing one Kaplan-bulb turbine. A preliminary design
of the facilities and selection of the turbine and generator would be
performed during the feasibility study.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. David Orth, 4886 East Jensen Avenue, Fresno,
CA 93725, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 101.
    FERC Contact: Corey Vezina,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
14497-000 filed February 11, 2013. Competing applications had to be
filed on or before June 3, 2013.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14527) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

    Dated: June 19, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15192 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53716-53718]
[DOCID:fr17se08-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0867; FRL-8715-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or
Modification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Texas State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) on October 9, 2006. The SIP revision EPA is approving would
require decreased newspaper notice for proposed air quality Standard
Permits with statewide applicability to the following metropolitan
areas: Austin, Dallas, Houston, and any other regional newspapers the
TCEQ Executive Director designates on a case-by-case basis. TCEQ will
publish notice of a proposed air quality Standard Permit in the Texas
Register and will issue a press release. In addition, TCEQ may also use
electronic means to inform state and local officials of a proposed air
quality Standard Permit. EPA is approving this revision pursuant to
section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0867. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Permits Section (6PD-R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for
public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to
make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least
two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per
page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC),
Chapter 116 (Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction
or Modification), Subchapter F (Standard Permits), section 116.603
(Public Participation in Issuance of Standard Permits). TCEQ adopted a
revision to this section on September 20, 2006, and submitted the
proposed SIP revision to EPA on October 9, 2006 for approval.
    The SIP revision requires that any proposed air quality Standard
Permit with statewide applicability be published in the daily newspaper
of largest general circulation within each of the following
metropolitan areas: Austin, Dallas, Houston, and any other regional
newspaper designated by the Executive Director on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed revision also requires TCEQ to publish notice of a
proposed Standard Permit in the Texas Register and issue a press
release. However, the proposed revision changes the current EPA SIP-
approved rule as it no longer requires TCEQ to issue newspaper notices
for proposed Standard Permits with statewide applicability in the
following metropolitan areas: Amarillo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, the
Lower Rio Grande Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, or Tyler. EPA
approves the revision as meeting the federal requirements of the Act,
Public Availability of Information, which requires ``. . . [n]otice by
prominent advertisement in the area affected * * *.''
    On May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28071), we published our proposed approval
of this SIP revision. The proposal provided detailed information about
the Texas SIP revision that we are approving today. The proposal also
provided a detailed analysis of our rationale for approving the Texas
SIP revision. In the proposal, we provided opportunity for public
comment on the proposed action. The comment period for this proposed
rulemaking ended June 16, 2008. We received no comments, adverse or
otherwise, on the proposed rulemaking. We are therefore finalizing our
proposed approval without changes. For more details on this submittal,
please refer to the proposed rulemaking and to the Technical Support
Document, which is in the docket for this action.
    For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking and in the
Technical Support Document, EPA believes that the revision to Section

116.603 continues to ensure that the entire State of Texas is provided
with adequate public notice of any proposed Standard Permit with
statewide applicability and ensures that citizens in Texas are afforded
the opportunity to comment on the proposed Standard Permit.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) or any other applicable requirements of the Act. Our review of
the Texas SIP submittal discussed in this notice and the Technical
Support Document demonstrated that although public notice for Standard
Permits with Statewide applicability will be published in fewer
newspapers, EPA believes that this SIP revision continues to meet the
Federal requirements relating to public notice for new and modified
sources. For these reasons we believe that the revision will not
interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS or any
other applicable requirements of the Act.

II. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is approving the changes to 30
TAC 116.603 (Public Participation in Issuance of Standard Permits)
submitted October 9, 2006, as a revision to the Texas SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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 final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA-Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entry for Section 116.603 to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State approval/
         State citation              Title/subject     submittal date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Subchapter F--Standard Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.603.................  Public                     09/20/06  9/17/08 [Insert FR
                                   Participation in                     page number where
                                   Issuance of                          document begins].
                                   Standard Permits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E8-21490 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


39662 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dated: May 16, 2002, Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. 02– 14488 Filed 6– 7– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [FRL– 7223– 6]

Clean Air Act Approval of Revisions to Operating Permits Program in Oregon AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, as a revision to Oregon's title V air operating permits program, a 1999 statute addressing the State's requirements for judicial standing to challenge State issued title V permits. In a Notice of Deficiency published on November 30, 1998 (63 FR 65783), EPA notified Oregon of EPA's finding that the State's requirements for judicial standing did not meet minimum Federal requirements for program approval. This program revision would resolve the deficiency identified in the Notice of Deficiency. EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to Oregon's title V air operating permits program, changes to Oregon's title V regulations made in 1999 that reorganize and renumber the regulations and increase title V fees. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing its approval as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial determination and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Denise Baker, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Air Quality, Mailcode OAQ– 107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101. Copies of Oregon's submittal, and other supporting information used in developing this action, are available for inspection during normal business hours at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Baker, Office of Air Quality, Mailcode, OAQ– 107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553– 8087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: May 22, 2002. Elbert Moore, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 02– 13973 Filed 6– 7– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [F– 2001– RDMP– FFFFF; FRL– 7228– 3]

RIN 2050– AE92 Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add a new section to the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF) to allow states to issue research, development, and demonstration (RD& D) permits for landfill operations at variance with some parts of the MSWLF criteria, provided landfill operators demonstrate that these operations will not result in an increased risk to human health and the environment. EPA is proposing this alternative to promote innovative technologies for the landfilling of municipal solid waste. Variance from the following MSWLF criteria would not be allowed: location restrictions, ground water monitoring, corrective action requirements, the financial assurance criteria, procedures for excluding hazardous waste, and explosive gases control requirements. DATES: EPA must receive your comments or your comments must be postmarked by August 9, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F– 2002– RDMP– FFFFF to: (1) if using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002, or (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments electronically through the Internet to: rcradocket epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F– 2002– RDMP– FFFFF. You must provide your electronic submittals as ASCII files and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the `` Supplementary Information'' section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424– 9346 or TDD 800 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412– 9810 or TDD 703 412– 3323. For information on specific aspects of this document: contact Dwight Hlustick, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division of the Office of Solid Waste VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39663 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules (mail code 5306W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, D. C. 20460; 703/ 308– 8647, hlustick. dwight@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting Materials, and Official Record The index and the following supporting materials are available on the Internet: `` Finding a Better Cover, '' Stephen F. Dwyer, Civil Engineering, January 2001, pages 58– 63; `` USEPA Workshop for Bioreactor Landfills, September 6– 7, 2000,'' U. S. EPA, September 2001; `` Prediction and Measurement of Leachate Head on Landfill Liners, '' Debra R. Reinhart, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Report #98– 3, July 1998; `` Technical Resource Document: Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems, '' EPA, Office of Research and Development, Grant # CR– 821448– 01– 0, February 2002, (R. Bonaparte, D. Daniel, and R. M. Koerner). You can find these materials at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ nonhw muncpl/ mswlficr/ index. htm. The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the official record for this rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above.

Affected Entities.

Entities potentially affected by this action are public or private owners or operators of landfills. Affected categories and entities include the following:

Category Examples of affected entities Federal Government Agencies procuring waste services Industry .............. Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills Category Examples of affected entities Municipalities, including Tribal Governments. Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills This table is a guide for readers that describes which entities are likely to be affected by this action. It lists the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be impacted by today's action. It is possible that other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether you would be impacted by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria. If you have questions about whether this action applies to a particular facility, please consult Mr. Dwight Hlustick, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste (5306W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20460, 703 308– 8647, hlustick. dwight@ epamail. epa. gov.

Outline I. Authority for this Proposed Rule II. EPA's Role in Developing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria III. Proposed Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits A. Duration of RD& D Permit B. Size Limitations C. Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements IV. State and Tribal Implementation V. Applicable statutes and executive orders A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. Legal Authority for This Proposed Rule The authority for this proposed revision to the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 258) is sections 1008, 2002( a), 4004, 4005( c) and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U. S. C. 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c), 6949a. II. EPA's Role in Developing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides that states will have the primary authority for regulating municipal solid waste. The role of the federal government is to establish an overall regulatory direction through the development of minimum national standards for nonhazardous solid waste disposal facilities, which include municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). On October 9, 1991, EPA issued revised Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (56 FR 50978). These criteria, codified in 40 CFR part 258, establish minimum national standards to ensure that `` no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment'' will result from solid waste disposal facilities receiving hazardous household waste and small quantity generator hazardous wastes (56 FR 50979). Today, EPA is proposing an amendment to the MSWLF criteria to allow for the issuance of limited permits for research, development, and demonstration projects. States with permit programs determinated to be adequate pursuant to RCRA section 4005( c) and 40 CFR part 239 (`` approved States'') would decide whether or not to adopt this provision in their approved programs.

III. Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits Today's proposed rule would allow the Director of an approved State to issue research, development, and demonstration (RD& D) permits to owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills. The Director of a nonapproved State would not have the option of issuing RD& D permits. EPA is proposing this provision to stimulate the development of new technologies and alternative operational processes for the landfilling of municipal solid waste. This proposed rule would allow the State director to waive specific provisions of the MSWLF criteria, including the (1) operating criteria, except procedures for excluding hazardous waste and explosive gas control in subpart C; (2) the design criteria in subpart D; and (3) the closure and post closure care criteria in subpart F. In order to issue an RD& D permit waiving any of these criteria, the State Director must be satisfied that a landfill operating under an RD& D permit will pose no additional risk to human health and the environment beyond that which would result from a landfill operating under the current MSWLF criteria. Today's proposed rule is modeled on VerDate jun< 06> 2002 17: 01 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 10JNP1 39664 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules the research, development, and demonstration permit provisions in 40 CFR 270.65. That provision allows states with approved hazardous waste management programs to issue RD& D permits for innovative and experimental treatment technologies or processes at hazardous waste treatment facilities. The permit variance proposed today is similar to that already allowed by some States which have more restrictive or stringent standards than those established in the 1991 MSWLF criteria. However, under the present federal standards set forth in the criteria, these state research permits are very limited in their scope, i. e., state rules cannot be less stringent than the MSWLF criteria. Today's proposed rule would allow more latitude in these existing state programs as well as allowing the development of new programs in other States. EPA is proposing to allow permits for alternative design and operating requirements because EPA has become aware of new or improved technologies for landfill operations and design since the promulgation of the MSWLF criteria in 1991. These include: (1) Improvements in liner system design and materials; (2) improvements in the design of, and materials used in leachate drainage and recirculation systems; (3) new processes for more rapid degradation of waste which require the addition of water or steam; (4) new liquid distribution techniques (see EPA Docket Number F– 2000– ALPA– FFFFF for FR Notice: Alternative Liner Performance, Leachate Recirculation, and Bioreactor Landfills: Request for Information and Data, April 6, 2000, FR18014); and (5) improvements in various monitoring devices (i. e., `` Prediction and Measurement of Leachate Head on Landfill Liners, '' Debra R. Reinhart, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Report #98– 3, July 1998). As a result, the approved States would have flexibility in allowing the operation of new and innovative technologies in permitting the landfilling of municipal solid waste. The State and the owner/ operator must assure there is no increased risk to human health and the environment when instituting any of the new techniques or processes which would be allowed by today's proposed rule changes. EPA has determined that in order to ensure that human health and the environment are protected, specific criteria developed for municipal solid waste landfills should not be able to be waived. Therefore, today's proposed rule would not allow State directors to deviate from the requirements addressing: (1) Location restrictions in subpart B; (2) ground water monitoring and corrective action in subpart E; (3) financial assurance in subpart G; (4) explosive gases control in 40 CFR 258.23 of subpart C; and (5) hazardous waste control in 40 CFR 258.20 of subpart C. EPA believes that these provisions are necessary to assure a national minimum level of protection by requiring (1) landfills to be properly located safe distances from airports, outside of wetlands, and floodplains; (2) ground water to be adequately monitored and corrective action measures to be implemented, if needed; (3) adequate financial safeguards to be in place for closure and post closure action; (4) explosive gases to be monitored and controlled; and (5) procedures to be in place to prevent the dumping of regulated quantities of hazardous waste in MSW landfills. An example of a modification to the operation of an MSWLF that would be allowed to be issued under an RD& D permit would be the addition of nonhazardous liquids to accelerate decomposition in a MSWLF unit constructed with an alternative liner (i. e., a liner that complies with the performance design criteria in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1) rather than a liner that complies with the design specifications in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2)). This practice is not allowed under the existing municipal landfill criteria. Today's proposed rule would grant State Directors in approved States the authority to issue permits allowing for the addition of these liquids, provided the owner/ operator demonstrates that there will be no increased risk to human health and the environment. The MSWLF owner/ operator would therefore be required to demonstrate groundwater protection, landfill stability, as well as earlier landfill gas collection and control sooner than is currently required under EPA air regulations (40 CFR part 60, subparts CC and WWW). The plan for landfill gas control would need to be included as a requirement in the RD& D permit. Another example of a variance for which an RD& D permit could be issued is use of an alternate landfill cover rather than that which is specified in the MSWLF criteria. Although the current regulations provide approved States with flexibility regarding covers for landfills, this proposed rule would allow State directors in approved States additional flexibility, while maintaining the assurance that human health and the environment are protected. EPA believes that flexibility is warranted due to varying climates, topography, and waste handling techniques in approved States. However with additional flexibility, there is the need to more closely monitor the operations of those landfills that have been issued RD& D permits. EPA has also considered the applicability of this proposed rule to owners/ operators of small landfills that are exempt from part 258 subparts D and E as specified in 40 CFR 258.1( f). EPA concluded that these small landfills should also be allowed to apply and receive RD& D permits under today's rule for the following reason: EPA is proposing to allow this because permits will be issued on a site specific basis and the State Director has the authority to modify or eliminate the above exemptions as is needed to protect human health and the environment. Therefore, the exemptions for these facilities would remain applicable if the owner/ operator applies for a permit under today's proposal, unless the State Director determines otherwise. EPA is not proposing a process or methodology for obtaining an RD& D permit, but is leaving permit application and issuance procedures up to the States wishing to issue these permits. EPA will work with interested States in developing these procedures and will issue guidance if we determine that there is sufficient interest and need for such guidance.

A. Duration of RD& D Permits Today's proposed rule would limit the duration of initial RD& D permits to three years. EPA believes that three years is an appropriate length of time to initially test and assess the performance of an innovative technology or process in an MSWLF. Similar to the RD& D permit provision for hazardous waste treatment facilities, this rule would allow the permit to be renewed for three years up to three times. Therefore, this proposal would allow for a maximum permit period of 12 years. While this is a relatively short time in the life of a landfill and a longer time may be needed for some projects, EPA believes that this is sufficient time to determine whether a project will be successful in meeting its stated goals. If a project proves successful and the owner/ operator and State agree that it should continue longer than 12 years, EPA may develop a site specific rule or other appropriate regulatory modification to the MSWLF criteria. EPA requests comment on whether three years is an appropriate permit duration and whether three permit renewals for a total project duration of 12 years is also appropriate.

VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39665 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules B. Size Limitations EPA considered placing a size limitation on the RD& D projects to be permitted. This included the area of the landfill, as well as the quantity of waste placed in the landfill. EPA determined that due to the variation in types of projects, limitations based on size of landfill, quantity of waste, or other limitations should be determined by the State Director on a site specific basis. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to establish any limitations based on size or waste quantity, but rather, recommends that the Directors of approved States consider whether size or capacity limitations are warranted, based on the project goals, in order to protect the environment and human health and stay within the maximum duration of the RD& D permit. However, EPA requests comment on whether there should be any limitations on the size of the landfill or quantity of waste placed in the landfill.

C. Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements To ensure that projects operating under an RD& D permit meet the expectations of the research, development, or demonstration project, EPA is also proposing to require that the permittee test, monitor, and submit information to the State Director as specified in the RD& D permit in order for the Director to determine the progress of the project, insure proper operation of the landfill, and assure protection of human health and the environment. EPA is not proposing particular monitoring testing, or recordkeeping requirements, nor does the proposal specify monitoring frequency. The Agency believes that each project should be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate monitoring, testing, and records to be kept, as well as to determine how often such monitoring or testing should take place. Therefore, under the proposed rule, the State Director would make this assessment and include specific monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements in each permit. Similarly, EPA is proposing that the State Director specify the reporting requirements in the permit on a sitespecific basis. As a separate requirement, the proposed rule would require the landfill owner/ operator to submit an annual report to the State Director summarizing progress on how well the project is attaining its goals. Examples of goals include environmental protection, cost benefits, community benefits, compost recovery, improved ground water protection, more rapid and/ or complete decomposition of waste, improved landfill gas recovery. These goals should be clearly stated in the permit in objective, measurable terms where possible. EPA specifically requests comments on whether these monitoring and reporting requirements are appropriate.

IV. State and Tribal Implementation The municipal solid waste landfill criteria are implemented in one of two ways. The first, and preferred alternative, is that each State implements the criteria after EPA reviews its municipal solid waste landfill permit program or other system of prior approval and finds it to be adequate pursuant to 40 CFR part 239. The criteria contain provisions that allow States to develop and rely on alternative approaches to address sitespecific conditions. Therefore, the actual planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs is principally a function of State governments and those owners and operators, including local governments, of MSWLFs, rather than the federal government. The criteria can also be `` self implementing'' by landfill owners and operators in those States that have not received EPA approval of their MSWLF permitting programs. In this case, the regulations provide less flexibility for owners and operators. As of January 1, 2002, 49 States and territories had received approval of their programs and are implementing these regulations. As discussed in a prior Federal Register notice (63 FR 57027, October 23, 1998), Tribes are not included in the definition of State under RCRA, and therefore EPA does not have authority under RCRA to approve tribal MSWLF permitting programs. However, tribes can seek the same flexibility as afforded owners and operators located in approved States through a site specific rulemaking as discussed in the EPA draft guidance entitled, `` Site Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country, '' EPA530– 97– 016, August 1997. Today's proposed rule to allow RD& D permits would not be self implementing. MSWLF owners/ operators would only be able to obtain an RD& D permit in approved States that adopt authority to issue such permits. Because today's proposed rule provides more flexibility than existing federal criteria, States would not be required to amend their permit programs which have been determined to be adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States would have the option to amend statutory or regulatory definitions pursuant to today's proposed rule. If a State chooses to amend its statutory or regulatory authority, and if doing so modifies the State's solid waste permit program, the State would be required to notify the EPA Regional Administrator of the modification as provided by 40 CFR 239.12. Whether a State chooses to incorporate today's proposed rule into its solid waste program would have no effect on its existing status with respect to EPA approval, i. e., State revisions to issue RD& D permits will not open previously approved solid waste programs for Federal review. Tribes may also receive RD& D permits allowed by today's proposed rule similar to owners and operators located in approved States through a sitespecific rulemaking outlined in the previously referenced draft guidance document, `` Site Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country. ''

V. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Applicable Statues and Executive Orders?

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. A significant regulatory action is defined by Executive Order 12866 as one that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. Today's proposed rule would allow, but would not require, States to provide RD& D permits to individual MSWLFs. The proposed rule would not require any MSWLF to apply for such a permit, but would provide an opportunity to those MSWLFs seeking to try innovative or new technology or processes with respect to landfilling municipal solid waste.

VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39666 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules It has been determined that today's proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Today's proposed rule would impose no new requirements and is intended to give more flexibility to the regulated community with significant potential net cost savings. Although net cost savings are expected, EPA is unable to estimate the magnitude of the savings because it is yet to be seen how many RD& D permits will be authorized or what kinds of permit changes or innovations might be undertaken.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that is primarily engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS codes 562212 and 924110 (also defined by SIC codes 4953 and 9511) with annual receipts less than 10 million dollars, as defined in accordance with the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards established for industries listed in the North American Industry Classification System (see http:// www. sba. gov/ size/ NAICS cover page. html); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal Agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). The following discussion explains EPA's determination. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), since the rule has direct effects only on state agencies. The purpose of this rule is to add flexibility to the MSWLF criteria. This rule would add no new requirements to the MSWLF criteria for either existing or new facilities, nor will it increase costs for new or existing MSWLFs regardless of size. In conclusion, EPA has determined that this rule would not impose significant new burdens on small entities. Instead, this rule is expected to provide net annual benefits (in the form of regulatory relief; potential research, development, and innovation advancements; and long term benefits) from the voluntary participation by facilities in the private sector.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104– 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 found that this proposed rule imposes no additional enforceable burden on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, and 205 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document will be prepared by EPA and a copy, when completed, may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at auby. susan@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 2740. A copy can also be downloaded off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr when it is available. The ICRs affected by this rule are for 40 CFR parts 239, Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. EPA has submitted the ICR for part 239 (ICR# 1608.03, OMB# 2050– 152) to OMB for review. EPA included estimates of the cost for approved States to revise their existing program for today's rule. The estimated cost was $5,680 per respondent. EPA is requesting comments from States which plan to make these revisions so that EPA can better understand the expected burden that would be incurred by states who wish to make these changes. EPA is estimating that approximately five states will revise their rules to take advantage of today's proposal. In addition, EPA is also requesting information from MSWLF owners/ operators on the reporting burden that they would incur due to this rule under the part 258, MSWLF criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.06, OMB# 2050– 0122). Information which States are expected to require include the annual report specified in the rule as well as additional monitoring and testing requirements which may be specified by a State authority. Additional monitoring requirements could include the measurement of leachate head on the liner; landfill temperature at various locations; type, application rate and application method of various wastes including liquid wastes and water that maybe placed in the landfill; additional hydraulic studies; landfill settlement VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39667 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules rate determinations, etc. At present EPA estimates that only two to three landfills a year will be permitted under this proposed rule over the next few years. Reporting requirements are estimated to cost between $15,000 and $25,000 per year per landfill. So total reporting costs are estimated at $30,000 to $75,000 per year for the first year and increasing at a rate of $50,000 per year for the next three years thereafter. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2823); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N. W., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. '' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 10, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 10, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Implementation of this proposed rule by a State would be at the State's discretion and would not be required. Nevertheless, although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA has consulted with States through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials during the development of this proposal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule change. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. '' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. '' Under section 5( b) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5( c) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule would have no new tribal implications. It would not present any additional burden on the tribes, but would allow more flexibility for compliance with the MSWLF criteria. It would neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5( b) and 5( c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it would not affect decisions involving the environmental health or safety risks to children.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104– 113, 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods,

VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39668 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide explanations to Congress, through OMB, when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice.

Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, '' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report, '' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities. The Agency believes that today's proposed rule which would provide for research, development, and demonstration permits for municipal solid waste landfills would not have an adverse environmental or economic impact on any minority or low income group, or on any other type of affected community since these standards would not significantly affect the location of any solid waste collection facility.

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Municipal Landfills, Waste treatment and disposal. Dated: May 31, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 258 as follows:

PART 258—[ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1345( d) and (e); 42 U. S. C. 6902( a), 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c) and 6949a( c).

2. New § 258.4 is added to part 258 to read as follows § 258.4 Research, development, and demonstration permits. (a) The Director of an approved State may issue a research, development, and demonstration permit for a new or existing municipal solid waste landfill for which the owner or operator proposes to utilize innovative and new methods for operation, design, or landfill cover which vary from any of the following criteria: (1) The operating criteria in subpart C of this part except the procedures for excluding the receipt of hazardous waste in § 258.20 and the explosive gases control requirements in § 258.23; (2) The design criteria in subpart D of this part; and (3) The final cover criteria in § 258.60( a) and (b). (b) Any permit issued under this section must include such terms and conditions as least as protective as the criteria in the part to assure protection of human health and the environment. Such permits shall: (1) Provide for the construction and operation of such facilities as necessary, for not longer than three years unless renewed as provided in paragraph (c) of this section; (2) Provide for the receipt by the landfill of only those types and quantities of municipal solid waste and non hazardous wastes which the State Director deems appropriate for the purposes of determining the efficacy and performance capabilities of the technology or process; (3) Include such requirements as necessary to protect human health and the environment (including but not limited to, requirements regarding monitoring, design, operation, financial responsibility, closure and post closure, and remedial action), including such requirements as necessary regarding testing and providing information to the State Director with respect to the operation of the facility; (4) Require the owner or operator of a landfill permitted under this section to submit an annual report to the State Director showing whether and to what extent the site is progressing in attaining project goals. The report will also include a summary of all monitoring and testing requirements as well as any other operating information specified by the State Director in the permit; and (5) Require compliance with the criteria in subpart B (location restrictions), subpart E (ground water monitoring and corrective action), and subpart G (financial assurance) of this part. (c) The Director of an approved State may order an immediate termination of all operations at the facility at any time he determines that the overall goals of the projects are not being attained, including protection of human health or the environment. (d) Any permit issued under this section may not be renewed more than three times by the Director of an approved State. Each such renewal shall be for a period of not more than three years.

[FR Doc. 02– 14489 Filed 6– 7– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 18 Marine Mammals: Incidental Take During Specified Activities AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we, the Fish and Wildlife Service, intend to prepare an EIS to evaluate the effects of authorizing the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), we are currently in the process of developing incidental take regulations for government activities related to the operation of watercraft and watercraft access facilities within the geographic area of the species' range in Florida for a period of not more than five years.

DATES: We will consider comments on the proposed Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that are received by July 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:

VerDate jun< 06> 2002 17: 01 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 10JNP1


Glyphosate Registration Review Focus Meeting Held November 8, 2012
Participants: Joint Glyphosate Task Force, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and Office of Pesticide Programs
November 8, 2012
On November 8, 2012, representatives from the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs met for 1.5 hours with representatives from the Joint Glyphosate Task Force (JGTF) and Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to discuss the  application parameters across glyphosate labels.,.  The JGTF presented to EPA and PMRA their efforts thus far  to tabulate  use rates  for glyphosate products.  The JGTF indicated that it was attempting to identify particular application parameters (e.g. application rates or number of applications) that are currently missing from glyphosate labels.  The absence of application parameters may present difficulties for product users, and presents difficulties for the Agency when it conduct its risk assessment.   The parties discussed how, and whether all glyphosate use parameters may be captured in a single document that may be considered a "master glyphosate label."
The status of registration review data requirements, and the timeframe for submission of these data was also briefly discussed.

Attendees
Glyphosate Focus Meeting
November 8, 2012
Name
Affiliation
Email
EPA
Arnet Jones
OPP/BEAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Phillips
OPP/BEAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sepehr Haddad
OPP/BEAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dana Spatz
OPP/EFED
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Amy Blankinship
OPP/EFED
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rosanna Louie-Juzwaik
OPP/EFED
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jim Hetrick
OPP/EFED
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Billy Smith
OPP/HED
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Julie VanAlstine
OPP/HED
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Carissa Cyran
OPP/PRD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Moriarty
OPP/PRD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dan Kenny
OPP/RD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Erik Kraft
OPP/RD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Joint Glyphosate Task Force
Spencer Mortensen
BASF
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Miller
Data Group Management
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jason Bailey
Dow AgroSciences
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Steve McMaster
Dow AgroSciences
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Erin Ahlers
Monsanto
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Steve Adams
Monsanto
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Mahlburg
Nufarm
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Matt Granahan
Nufarm
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janelle Kay
Pyxis
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jerry Wells
Syngenta
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

PMRA

Wenming Zhang
PMRA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sonia Roussel
PMRA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                        Glyphosate Focus Meeting
                          Thursday, November 8, 2012
                                 11:00 am EDT
   1. Introductions

   2. Overview of Registration Review Timeline

   3. JGTF presentation of master label

JGTF Questions to EPA
   1.    EPA timelines for the remainder of registration review

   2.    Where should we focus our resources in terms of collecting use/usage data

   3.    When an active ingredient has diverse uses, what are acceptable sources for collecting use/usage information on specialty and minor uses

   4.    How much of this use/usage data is BEAD willing to consider

   5.    Is BEAD going to be preparing any additional use/usage information from their resources (beyond the Screening Level Usage Analysis)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 74415]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP23-20-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. submits
Application for Abandonment of Transportation Southern's FERC Gas
Tariff, Original Volume 2.
    Accession Number: 20221122-5180.
    Comment Date: 12/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: PR23-11-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: Rate Election 11-28-2022
to be effective 11/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20221128-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.
    184.123(g) Protest: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-209-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Minimum Fuel and Loss
Reimbursement Percentages to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20221128-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-210-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Cashout Report 2021-2022 to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20221129-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-211-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing 11-29-
2022 to be effective 11/29/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20221129-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-212-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: SCRM Filing Nov 22 to be
effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20221129-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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>.

    Dated: November 29, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26385 Filed 12-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES JAN 21 2005 Dr. Penny Hunst Regulatory Manager Mycogen Seeds c/ o Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 1054 Dear Dr. Hunst:

Subject: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/[ 35]* Ab1 Proteins and the Genetic Material Necessary for their Production ( From the Insert of Plasmid PHP17662) in Corn / Your Amendment/ Extension Request; December 20, 2004 Revised Experimental Program Section G; and January 17, 2005 Letter and Revised Acreage Request EPA Experimental Use Permit No. 68467 EUP 7 Effective Dates: January 21, 2005 Through April 30, 2006 and Associated Activities Such as Collection of Field Data; Harvesting & Processing of Seed After Last Planting; and Containment Activities Such as Destruction of Volunteer Corn Plants Quantity Authorized: 2734.85 grams Cry34Ab1 and 10.88 grams Cry35Ab1 in Seeds On the basis of the information furnished by the applicant and the annexed program, an experimental use permit under § 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act is hereby amended/ extended for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/[ 35]* Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production ( from the insert of plasmid PHP17662) in corn. A temporary tolerance exemption under 40 CFR § 180.1242 is associated with this experimental use permit.

Prior to shipment and/ or use of the subject corn, you must consult with the pesticide regulatory officials and, if applicable, the biotechnology regulatory officials of the State( s) in which your experimental program will be conducted, and obtain a State permit or license if such is required. ( Note Hawaii's reporting requirement for genetically modified organisms under section 321 11.6 of the Hawaii revised statutes.) Issuance of this Federal permit does not negate the need for permission from individual States. Prior to initiating this experimental program in any State, you are to notify the lead Agency of the State( s) in which your experimental program will be conducted of the specific testing program ( when, where, how much, etc.). Failure to do so may result in revocation or modification of this EUP. You must comply with all requirements of the USDA/ APHIS as they apply to the proposed testing.

You must provide notice to the State pesticide regulatory Agency at least 72 hours before you begin to apply the experimental use product. You must also provide a copy of this 2 authorization letter and stamped labels, as well as the non confidential portion of the Section G ( the December 20, 2004 version of your section G modified to include the acreage table in your January 17, 2005 submission and the protocol acreage limitations below) to all cooperators, participants, and users prior to the initial pesticide application made in accordance with the EUP amendment/ extension. The Agency is also notifying the relevant EPA Region( s), by sending them copies of this EUP.

Conditions under which the EUP is being issued are as follows.

1. The amount of corn seed planted of ( 1) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/[ 35]* Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production ( construct PHP17662, event DAS 59122 7) in corn, ( 2) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production ( construct PHP8999, event TC1507) in corn , ( 3) stacked Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/[ 35]* Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production ( construct PHP17662, event DAS 59122 7) in corn X Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production ( construct PHP8999, event TC1507) corn, and ( 4) any non transgenic corn to be used will not exceed the amount needed to plant a total of 3096 acres.

2. The permittee will immediately notify the Environmental Protection Agency of any findings from the experimental uses that have a bearing on safety ( i. e., reporting to the Agency of any adverse effects from the use of, or exposure to, the pesticide is required). The permittee will also keep records of production, distribution and performance, and, on request, make the records available to any authorized officer or employee of the Environmental Protection Agency.

3. You must provide a final report within180 days of the expiration of the permit. The final report must include all of the items set forth in 40 CFR § 172.8( b).

4. Per 40 CFR § 17[ 2]*. 4( b)( v), you must provide the name and street address of all cooperators as soon as available and prior to planting.

5. The labeling submitted in connection with your application is acceptable and must be used for all shipments of seed subsequent to receiving this approval and be in possession of the user under this EUP. A stamped copy of the label which contains the correct EUP number, 68467 EUP 7, is enclosed for your records.

6. This experimental use permit is not a limited seed increase registration under § 3 of FIFRA and plantings solely for commercial seed increase are prohibited 7. Future submissions should provide more detailed protocol descriptions ( e. g. states where specific trials will be conducted, number of trials per state, number of hybrid/ inbred lines to be tested, etc.) that clearly justify the need for the trial and acreage. 3 8. State by state breakdowns of acreage and locations needed per protocol must be provided in the final report.

Based upon the submitted experimental program, the subject corn seed may be shipped for use under this permit to the following State( s) and be planted on the following acreage, provided that the that the agronomically justified acreage as listed below is not exceeded States agree to the trials and all other requirements of the USDA/ APHIS have been met as they apply to the testing and :

STATE or COMMONWEALTH ACREAGE Hawaii 225 Illinois 115.5 Indiana 98.5 Iowa 662 Kansas 1.5 Kentucky 0.5 Michigan 1.5 Minnesota 42.5 Missouri 1.5 Nebraska 1735 New York 0.5 North Dakota 6.5 Ohio 8.5 Pennsylvania 1.5 Puerto Rico 152 South Dakota 1.5 Texas 0.5 Wisconsin 41.5 Total 3096.0 Acres 4 March 2005 April 2006 EUP Protocols EUP Acres Requested Agronomically Justified Breeding and observation nursery 277 277 Agronomic observation trials 2,401 2,000 Glufosinate herbicide tolerance study 2,199 750 Efficacy trial 44 44 Insect resistance management studies 25 25 Totals 4,946 3,096 Sincerely,

/ s/

Janet L. Andersen, Ph. D., Director Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C)

Enclosures * Typographical Correction


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54863-54865]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0675; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01406-T;
Amendment 39-22156; AD 2022-18-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by unclear and incomplete placard instructions for the
doghouse door lock. This AD requires installing improved handling
instruction placards on affected doghouses and re-identifying the
doghouses, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also prohibits
the installation of affected doghouses under certain conditions. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 13, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu.
You may find this IBR material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0675.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0675; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0279, dated December 15, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0279) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model Airbus A318-111, A318-112,
A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115,
A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, A319-153N, A319-171N, A320-
211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-
233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, A320-273N,
A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231,
A321-232, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N, A321-252NX, A321-253N,
A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N, and A321-272NX airplanes.
Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not
included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore
does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2022 (87 FR 35684). The NPRM was prompted
by unclear and incomplete placard instructions for the doghouse door
lock. The NPRM proposed to require installing improved handling
instruction placards on affected doghouses and re-identifying the
doghouses, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0279. The NPRM also proposed to
prohibit the installation of affected doghouses under certain
conditions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the possible failure of the
doghouse door lock latch, which could result in locking the door in the
closed position and preventing access to the emergency equipment in the
doghouse, possibly resulting in injury to occupants. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly,
the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0279 specifies procedures for installing improved
handling instruction placards on affected doghouses and re-identifying
the doghouses, and prohibits installation of affected doghouses under
certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 1,825 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................             $ *              $85         $155,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the replacement placards
  specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-18-05 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22156; Docket No. FAA-2022-0675;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01406-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 13, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) All Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, and A318-122
airplanes.
    (2) All Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115,
A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, A319-153N, and A319-171N
airplanes.
    (3) All Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231,
A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N,
A320-272N, and A320-273N airplanes.
    (4) All Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212,
A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N,
A321-252NX, A321-253N, A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N,
and A321-272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by unclear and incomplete placard
instructions for the doghouse door lock, which could lead to
incorrect operation of the doghouse door lock. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the possible failure of the doghouse door lock
latch, which could result in locking the door in the closed position
and preventing access to the emergency equipment in the doghouse,
possibly resulting in injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0279, dated December 15, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0279).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0279

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0279 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0279 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0279 refers to affected
airplanes, replace the text ``For Group 1 aeroplanes'' with ``Group
1 airplanes except for airplanes identified in paragraph (2) of EASA
AD 2021-0279.''

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0279,
dated December 15, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0279, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 17, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19279 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P