[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48932-48935]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0360; Product Identifier 2018-NM-009-AD; Amendment
39-19434; AD 2018-19-33]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes,
and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model
A300-600 series airplanes). This AD was prompted by a determination
that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We
are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 2, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 2,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards 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 on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0360.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0360; 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 regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We 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 A300
B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes). The

NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2018 (83 FR 18756).
The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary.
The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.
    We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or
corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
EASA AD 2017-0205, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600,
B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The
MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A300-600
aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and
published in the Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) documents. The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items
are specified in the A300-600 ALS Part 2. These instructions have
been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [i.e., to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or
corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2016-0218 [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2018-01-07, Amendment 39-19148 (83 FR 2042, January 16, 2018)
(``AD 2018-01-07'')] to require compliance with the maintenance
requirements and associated airworthiness limitations defined in
Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, Variation 1.1 and Variation
1.2.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations were approved
by the EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 02 of the A300-
600 ALS Part 2, compiling all ALS Part 2 changes approved since
previous Revision 01.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0218, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part
2 Revision 02.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0360.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we provide approval for
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that were previously approved
for AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014)
(``AD 2013-13-13''); and AD 2018-01-07, Amendment 39-19148 (83 FR 2042,
January 16, 2018) (``AD 2018-01-07'').
    We agree that AMOCs previously approved for AD 2018-01-07 and AD
2013-13-13 should be approved for this AD. The FAA has reviewed the
related AMOCs, and it is acceptable to give credit for previous AMOCs
approved for AD 2018-01-07, which will be terminated by this AD. AD
2018-01-07 approved the use of AMOCs for AD 2013-13-13, and those AMOCs
remain in force. As a result, we have revised paragraph (j)(1) of this
AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the change described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS), Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-
ALI),'' Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017. This service information
describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT-ALIs. This
service information 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with
these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed
by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions
described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR
91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an AMOC according to
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description
of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued
damage tolerance of the affected structure.

Difference Between the MCAI and This AD

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS
inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance
with Airbus SAS maintenance documentation. However, this AD does not
include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are
required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to
perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We
consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we

have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a
per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

.2018-19-33 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19434; Docket No. FAA-2018-
0360; Product Identifier 2018-NM-009-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 2, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2018-01-07, Amendment 39-19148 (83 FR 2042,
January 16, 2018) (``AD 2018-01-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking,
damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS), Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation
Items (DT-ALI),'' Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017. The initial
compliance times for doing the tasks are at the applicable times
specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS, Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),'' Revision 02, dated August
28, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD.

(i) Terminating Actions for AD 2018-01-07

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2018-01-07.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-01-07 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (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): 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0205, dated October 12, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0360.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),''
Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 17, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-20921 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51589-51590]
[DOCID:fr30au06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC06-715-000; FERC-715]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

August 24, 2006.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due October 31,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of sample filings of the proposed collection of
information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp
) or from the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive
Director, ED-34, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments
may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those parties
filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper
filing, the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted
to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to
Docket No. IC06-715-000.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-filing'', and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through the Commission's homepage using the eLibrary link. For
user assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at
(866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by

telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-715 ``Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation
Report'', (OMB No. 1902-0171) is mandated by section 213(b) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Through section 213(b) Congress requires the Commission to collect
annually from transmitting utilities, certain transmission system
information and make it available to potential transmission providers,
customers and state regulatory authorities. This information collection
also supports the Commission's responsibilities under sections 202,
207, 210-213, 304, 309 and 311 of the FPA, as amended (49 Stat. 838; 16
U.S.C. 791a-825r). The Commission's FERC-715 filing requirements are
published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 18 CFR section
141.300.
    Through the FERC-715, the Commission gathers basic electric
transmission system information. The Commission staff use the FERC-715
information to evaluate available transmission capacity and assess
transmission reliability. Electrical transmission customers and
transmission dependent utilities use the information, in conjunction
with other information sources, to assess transmission availability.
Federal and private agencies use the information in transmission
simulations to test the impact of changes to the transmission system,
necessary to improve system functioning. FERC-715 filing instructions
are provided on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp.
 In order to assist the Commission in properly

analyzing the information received from respondents for the FERC-715,
several clarifications of the instructions are proposed and a copy of
those clarifications accompanies this notice for comment. These
clarifications are not to be considered as changes to the information
filed with the FERC-715.
    Some or all of the information collected may be treated as Critical
Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) (see Order 630, OMB Control
No. 1902-0197). CEII is information concerning proposed or existing
critical infrastructure (physical or virtual) that:
    1. Relates to the production, generation, transmission or
distribution of energy;
    2. Could be useful to a person planning an attack on critical
infrastructure;
    3. Is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act; and
    4. Gives strategic information beyond the location of the critical
infrastructure.
    CEII is not available to the public. The Commission has established
procedures for gaining access to CEII that would otherwise not be
available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These
actions are necessary to keep highly sensitive infrastructure
information out of the public domain thus decreasing the likelihood
that such information could be used to plan and execute terrorist
attacks.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of
data and only clarifications to the instructions.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of     Average  burden
              Number of respondents annually                 responses per      hours per        Total annual
                                                               respondent        response        burden hours
(1)                                                                    (2)              (3)         (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
183.......................................................               1              160              29,280

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

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $1,651,519. (29,280 hours/
2080 hours per year times $117,321 per year average per employee). The
cost per respondent is $9,025).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities, which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14402 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32086]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0410]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia,
PA; Safety Zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 29, 2022, to provide
for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the Rivers Casino
fireworks event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth
Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in
Philadelphia, PA. During the enforcement period, the operator of any
vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the
Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.

DATES: The regulation in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506,
entry 10 will be enforced 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, you may call or email Petty Officer
Jennifer Padilla, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways
Management Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 for the
Rivers Casino Fireworks display 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 29, 2022.
This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable
waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after the fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety
zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District,
table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the
location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware River,
adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within 500 yards of the
fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the display is
latitude 39[deg]57'39'' N, longitude 075[deg]07'45'' W. During the
enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.  165.506(d), vessels may not
enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel
on-scene.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement
period via broadcast notice to mariners.

    Dated: May 19, 2022.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-11468 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22021-22022]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09585]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 611, SEC File No. 270-540, OMB Control No. 3235-0600.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 611 (17 CFR 242.611).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.

 Rule 611 (17 CFR 242.611)--Order Protection Rule

    On June 9, 2005, effective August 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 37496, June
29, 2005), the Commission adopted Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) to require any
national securities exchange, national securities association,
alternative trading system, exchange market maker, over-the-counter
market maker, and any other broker-dealer that executes orders
internally by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent, to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the execution of a transaction in its
market at a price that is inferior to a bid or offer displayed in
another market at the time of execution (a ``trade-though''), absent an
applicable exception and, if relying on an exception, that are
reasonably designed to assure compliance with the terms of the
exception. Without this collection of information, respondents would
not have a means to enforce compliance with the Commission's intention
to prevent trade-throughs pursuant to the rule.
    There are approximately 304 respondents \1\ per year that will
require an aggregate total of 18,240 hours to comply with this rule. It
is anticipated that each respondent will continue to expend
approximately 60 hours annually: Two hours per month of internal legal
time and three hours per month of internal compliance time to ensure
that its written policies and procedures are up-to-date and remain in

compliance with Rule 611. The estimated cost for an in-house attorney
is $396 per hour and the estimated cost for an assistant compliance
director in the securities industry is $349 per hour. Therefore the
estimated total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden is as
follows: [(2 legal hours x 12 months x $396) x 304] + [(3 compliance
hours x 12 months x $349) x 304] = $6,708,672.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate includes twelve national securities exchanges
and one national securities association that trade NMS stocks. The
estimate also includes the approximately 255 firms that were
registered equity market makers or specialists at year-end 2015, as
well as 36 alternative trading systems that operate trading systems
that trade NMS stocks.
    \2\ The total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden has
been revised to reflect updated estimated cost figures for an in-
house attorney and an assistant compliance director. These figures
are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2017, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 8, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09585 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44548-44551]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20449]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0009; FRL-9967-38-Region 10]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Vancouver Water Station #1
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Vancouver Water Station #1
Contamination Superfund Site (Site) located in Vancouver, Washington,
from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on
this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have
been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1994-0009, by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    (2) Email: Laura Knudsen, Community Involvement Coordinator, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Mail: Laura Knudsen, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, RAD-202-3, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    (4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 10 Records Center, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1994-0009. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

USEPA Region 10 Records Center, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
City of Vancouver Water Resources Education Center, 4600 SE Columbia
Way, Vancouver, Washington, Monday through Friday, except holidays,
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturday between noon and 5:00
p.m., Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Jennings, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, ECL-122, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 10 announces its intent to delete the Vancouver Water
Station #1 Contamination Superfund Site from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Vancouver Water Station #1
Contamination Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    (1) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (2) all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    (3) the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new

information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology, has
concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Columbian. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified previously.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Director of EPA's
Region 10 Office of Environmental Cleanup will publish a final Notice
of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions
and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made
available to interested parties and in the site information
repositories listed previously.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Vancouver Water Station #1 Contamination Superfund Site (EPA
ID: WAD988519708) is located within Waterworks Park near the center of
the City of Vancouver, Clark County, Washington. Water Station #1 (WS1)
is a public water supply wellfield made up of ten groundwater
production wells, five air-stripping towers and a holding reservoir.
Water from WS1 is blended with water from several other wellfields to
provide drinking water to approximately 230,000 people in the Vancouver
region.
    The Water Station has been owned by the City of Vancouver (City)
and managed as part of their drinking water supply system for over 60
years. In 1988, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the
City began monitoring volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in water
supplied from all of its water stations. These tests found
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) to be present in several of the WS1 wells at
levels above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established under the
SDWA. The City notified the public and modified the pumping rates at
individual wells so that PCE levels in the drinking water delivered to
customers was consistently below the MCL.
    Groundwater samples collected between 1988 and 1992 indicated
levels of PCE in the groundwater as high as 30 [micro]g/L. While the
City managed the drinking water system such that the drinking water
distributed to customers remained below the MCL of 5 [micro]g/L,
elevated concentrations of PCE continued to be present in the
groundwater. In 1993, the City installed five air stripping towers at
the Site and began routing all the water extracted from the WS1
wellfield through the air strippers prior to distribution to customers.
This treatment reduced PCE levels to below analytical detection limits.
    On June 23, 1993, EPA proposed WS1 for listing on the NPL (58 FR
34018). The NPL listing for the Site was finalized on May 31, 1994 (59
FR 27989).
    The City continues to use the water from the WS1production wells as
part of their drinking water supply system. A park has been developed
on the land surrounding the wellfield.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    A baseline risk assessment quantified the potential risks to future
residents consuming untreated water ranged to be from 1E-06 to 6E-06 (1
to 6 excess cancers in 1,000,000 people). EPA found it was necessary to
take action at WS1 because the groundwater at several production wells
had been shown to have persistent concentrations of PCE above the MCL.
    In 1989 and 1990, several investigations were conducted by the City
and EPA. No pattern was found in the soil or groundwater data that
might indicate the location of the potential source of PCE. Based on
these results, EPA concluded that the likelihood of identifying a
significant source was low and that further investigation into source
identification was not warranted.

Selected Remedy

    On September 11, 1998, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Site. PCE was identified as the only Contaminant of Concern.
Remedial Action Objectives were established to protect human health by
reducing concentrations of PCE in the groundwater drinking water to
below the MCL (5.0 [micro]g/L).
    The selected remedy for the Site included pumping the production
wells at a rate consistent with customer demand until such time as the
PCE level in the groundwater at all production wells was below the MCL.
The extracted water was to be treated using the air stripping towers
and distributed to customers as drinking water. Monitoring of the
quality of the groundwater at the production wells and the water
following treatment was also required. Since no sources were identified
and no other drinking water wells were located in the area, no source
control actions or institutional controls were included.

Response Actions

    The City's production wells were used to pump contaminated
groundwater, which was then treated in air stripping towers. This
treatment system reduced PCE to nondetectable levels, so the water
could then be delivered to customers for use as drinking water. This
pump, treat, and delivery system began in 1993 and has operated
continuously for 24 years. Throughout this period, the City monitored
PCE concentrations in the aquifer, which declined gradually over time.

    The PCE levels in the groundwater at all wells are currently below
the MCL. Thus, the remedial action objectives have been attained and
the human health exposure pathways have been eliminated.
    A Preliminary Close Out Report documenting the completion of
construction activities was signed by EPA on September 25, 1998. The
Site was identified as ``Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use'' on
September 28, 2012. A Final Close Out Report documenting completion of
all remedial activities was signed by EPA on April 27, 2017.

Cleanup Levels

    The 1998 ROD requires treatment and monitoring until the PCE
concentrations in groundwater at all production wells are below the
MCL. As there have been no changes to the federal or state drinking
water standards for PCE or changes in the toxicity factors for PCE
since the ROD was issued, this cleanup level remains protective of
human health and the environment.
    In April 2017 the EPA reviewed the monitoring data and found that
PCE concentrations at 11 of the 12 production wells had been below the
cleanup level of 5 [micro]g/L since 2013. A further statistical
analysis of data collected from the other well indicated a downward
trend and a 95% Upper Confidence Level of 4.41 [micro]g/L, below the
cleanup level of 5 [micro]g/L. Based on this evaluation, EPA determined
that all remedial activities at the Site were complete, remedial action
objectives had been achieved and the use of the treatment system was no
longer required for the CERCLA remedy. All drinking water delivered
from the wellfield must continue to meet the requirements of the SDWA.

Five-Year Review

    Three policy five-year reviews have been completed at the Site, the
last one in September 2013.
    No issues or follow-up actions were identified as part of the 2013
Five Year Review. The protectiveness statement stated ``The remedy at
Vancouver WS1 is protective of human health and the environment because
the treatment system is functioning as intended and human and
ecological risks are under control. Long-term protectiveness of the
remedial action will be verified by regular monitoring by the City of
Vancouver.''
    The analysis conducted since the last FYR indicates that the remedy
has been fully implemented and the remedial action objectives and
related cleanup levels have been attained. No hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain above levels that could prevent
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, no further five-
year reviews are required.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the remedial process, the EPA has kept the
public informed of activities being conducted at the Site by way of
informational meetings, fact sheets and public meetings.
    Documents in the deletion docket which the EPA relied on for the
recommendation for deletion from the NPL are available to the public at
the information repositories identified previously. A notice of
availability of the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in
The Columbian.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Washington through the
Department of Ecology, has determined that the implemented remedy
achieves the degree of cleanup or protection specified in the ROD for
all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial and removal action
objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency
policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect
human health and the environment.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where all appropriate response actions have been implemented and
where no further response is appropriate. Consistent with this, the EPA
is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: August 25, 2017.
Sheryl Bilbrey,
Director--Region 10 Office of Environmental Cleanup.
[FR Doc. 2017-20449 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 185)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58292-58293]
[DOCID:fr24se10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 47

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0188; Amdt. No. 47-29A]
RIN 2120-AI89

Re-Registration and Renewal of Aircraft Registration; OMB
Approval of Information Collection; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of information collection; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting the notification of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval of information collection
requirements contained in the ``Re-Registration and Renewal of Aircraft
Registration'' final rule. The final rule was published on July 20,
2010. The notification of OMB approval of information collection was
published on August 30, 2010. This document corrects the OMB approval
expiration date referenced in the August 30, 2010, notification.

DATES: The final rule, including the information collection
requirements in part 47, published July 20, 2010, at 75 FR 41968, and
August 20, 2010, at 75 FR 52859, will become effective on October 1,
2010. The FAA received OMB approval for the information collection
requirements on August 16, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John G. Bent, Civil Aviation Registry,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Boulevard,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 20, 2010, the FAA published the final rule ``Re-
Registration and Renewal of Aircraft Registration'' (75 FR 41968).
    The final rule contained information collection requirements in
part 47 that had not yet been approved by OMB at the time of
publication. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the FAA
submitted a copy of the new information collection requirements to OMB
for its review. OMB approved the collection on August 16, 2010, and
assigned the information collection OMB Control Number 2120-0729, which
expires on February 29, 2012. In the notification of OMB approval
document that was published on August 30, 2010, the FAA incorrectly
stated that the expiration date was February 29, 2010. The FAA also
incorrectly referenced docket number FAA-2008-0118 instead of docket
number FAA-2008-0188. The FAA also inadvertently included references to
parts 13 and 91 in the heading of the document; however, parts 13 and
91 did not contain information collection requirements.
    In final rule FR Doc. 2010-21561 published on August 30, 2010 (75
FR 52859), make the following corrections:

Corrections to Preamble

0
1. On page 52859, in the second column, in the third line of the
heading, remove ``14 CFR Parts 13, 47, and 91'' and add in its place
``14 CFR Part 47.''

0
2. On page 52859, in the second column, in the fourth line of the
heading, remove ``FAA-2008-0118'' and add in its place ``FAA-2008-
0188.''
0
3. On page 52859, in the second column, in the fifth line of the
heading, remove ``13-34, 47-29, and 91-318'' and add in its place ``47-
29.''
0
4. On page 52859, in the third column, in the second paragraph under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the twelfth line, remove ``February 29,
2010'' and add in its place ``February 29, 2012.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 20, 2010.
Dennis R. Pratte, II,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. 2010-23964 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22957-22958]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09060]

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

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:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-744-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: State Route 72 DCRC Non-
Conforming & Negotiated Rate to be effective 4/26/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210422-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-745-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C..
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Macquarie
Energy, LLC SP365448 to be effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210422-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-746-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits request for a
3-month extension of time, or until 06/30/2021, to submit the annual
fuel filing under RP21-746.
    Filed Date: 4/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210422-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1353-012.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 20210423 Form 2 Calculated Factor
and Maintenance Capital Spending Report.
    Filed Date: 4/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20210423-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-747-000.
    Applicants: Infinite Energy, LLC, Gas South, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of Infinite Energy, LLC, et al. under RP21-747.
    Filed Date: 4/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20210423-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-748-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Statement of Negotiated Rates
Version 12.0.0 to be effective 5/24/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20210423-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-749-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Questar Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Statement of Negotiated Rates
Version 18.0.0 to be effective 5/24/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20210423-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-750-000.
    Applicants: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC.
    Description: Annual System Balancing Adjustment Filing of Florida
Southeast Connection, LLC under RP21-750..
    Filed Date: 4/23/21.

    Accession Number: 20210423-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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.
    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: April 26, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09060 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


NCER STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

DRAFT AGENDA

February 2-3, 2009

Westin Grand Hotel

2350 M Street, NW

Washington, DC  20037

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Monday, February 2, 2009

9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.		Registration

9:30 a.m. - 9:40 a.m.		Welcome and Opening Remarks		Dr. Martin A. Philbert,

				- Introductions				Chair, NCER Standing

				- Overview of Charge			Subcommittee

9:40 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.		DFO Remarks				Ms. Susan Peterson, Office of

				- Administrative Issues			Research and Development

9:45 a.m. - 9:55 a.m.		Opening Remarks			Dr. William Sanders

             				-Goal(s) of Review			Director, NCER

9:55 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.		NCER Research Budgets		Ms. Tara Porter

				-by Research Programs			Chief of Staff, NCER

10:00 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.		Break

10:15 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.		Integrated Multidisciplinary Research 	Dr. Audrey Levine

				(IMD) Framework			ORD National Program Director

				-Discussion and Q&A

10:45 a.m.  – 12:05 p.m.		NCER Scientific Leadership Examples	Research Program Leads

					-Human Health			Dr. Devon Payne-Sturges

					-Sustainability			Dr. Diana Bauer

					-Nanotechnology		Dr. Nora Savage

					-Water				Ms. Angela Page

12:05 p.m. - 1:05 p.m. 		Lunch

1:05 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.		Scientific Leadership Examples (Cont.)	Research Program Leads

					-Global Climate Change		Dr. Darrell Winner

									Director, Applied Science Division

					-Air				Ms. Stacey Katz

1:45 p.m. – 1:50 p.m. 		2007 BOSC Recommendations		Ms. Alva Daniels

				-Discussion and Q&A			Senior Science Advisor

1:50 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.		Public Comment

2:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.		Break

2:15 p.m. - 4:00	p.m.		Fellowships Program			Dr. Brandon Jones						 -Goal(s) of review			Team Lead, Fellowships Program

				Program Restructure and Status		Fellowships Team

				-Discussion and Q&A			Dr. Brandon Jones

									Ms. Maggie Breville

									Ms. Gladys Cobbs-Green

									Mr. Ted Just

									Ms. Georgette Boddie

4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.		Subcommittee Working Time		NCER Standing Subcommittee

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.		Subcommittee Working Time		NCER Standing Subcommittee

11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon		Future Discussion/Future Business	Dr. Martin A. Philbert,

				- Identify Additional Needs		Chair, NCER Standing

				- Schedule Second Teleconference	Subcommittee

12:00 noon			Adjourn

Draft Agenda for February 2-3, 2009 NCER Standing Subcommittee Meeting

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66321-66325]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26356]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0330, FRL-9902-46-Region 8]

Approval of North Dakota Request for Partial Delegation of
Prevention of Accidental Release, Clean Air Act Section 112(r) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112(l), EPA may approve
State or local rules or programs to be implemented and enforced in
place of certain otherwise applicable Federal rules, emissions
standards, or requirements. On September 13, 2012, the State of North
Dakota, Department of Agriculture (NDDA), requested partial delegation
of the CAA section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program (RM Program) for
agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities. The September 13, 2012
request was supplemented by the NDAA on February 26, 2013, and April
11, 2013. EPA has preliminarily determined that NDDA's request meets
CAA requirements for partial delegation, and EPA is proposing to
approve the request.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0330, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Brent Truskowski, Acting RMP Coordinator, Emergency
Response and Preparedness Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8EPR-ER, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado
80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Brent Truskowski, Acting RMP Coordinator,
Emergency Response and Preparedness Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8EPR-ER, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2014-0330. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Preparedness Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Truskowski, Acting RMP

Coordinator, Emergency Response and Preparedness Program, Mailcode
8EPR-ER, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information is organized as follows:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The word and initials RM Program means Risk Management
Program.
    (iii) The initials NDDA mean North Dakota Department of
Agriculture.
    (iv) The initials RMP mean Risk Management Plan.
    (v) The initials CFR mean Code of Federal Regulations.
    (vi) The initials FR mean Federal Register.
    (vii) The initials CAS mean Chemical Abstract Service.
    (viii) The initials NDCC mean North Dakota Century Code.
    (ix) The initials NDAC mean North Dakota Administrative Code.
    (x) The initials MOU mean Memorandum of Understanding.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. Background
    A. Risk Management Program Background
    B. Delegation of Section 112 Programs
    C. North Dakota's Request for Delegation
III. EPA's Analysis of NDDA's Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    On June 20, 1996, EPA promulgated Risk Management Program (RM
Program) regulations (40 CFR part 68) which were mandated under the
accidental release prevention provisions of section 112(r)(7) of the
CAA. 61 FR 31668. These regulations require owners and operators of
stationary sources subject to the regulations to submit risk management
plans (RMPs) to a central location specified by EPA. These regulations
also encourage sources to reduce the probability of accidentally
releasing substances that have the potential to cause harm to public
health and the environment, and stimulate dialogue between industry and
the public to improve accident prevention and emergency response
practices.
    The North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDAA) has requested
partial delegation of the RM Program for facilities with an anhydrous
ammonia storage capacity of ten thousand pounds or more that is
intended to be used as fertilizer or in the manufacturing of a
fertilizer (``agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities''). EPA is
proposing to approve this request and to partially delegate the RM
Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities to the State of
North Dakota. EPA would retain authority for the RM Program for all
other regulated chemicals which may be present at these facilities. See
40 CFR 68.130.
    After a thorough review of North Dakota's partial delegation
request, and the pertinent statutes and regulations, Region 8 proposes
to find that such a delegation is appropriate in that North Dakota has
satisfied the criteria in 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.95 by demonstrating it
has adequate and effective authorities, resources, and procedures in
place for implementation and enforcement of agricultural anhydrous
ammonia facilities subject to the RM Program. If approved, North Dakota
will have the primary authority and responsibility to carry out
elements of the RM Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia
facilities within the State, including on-site inspections,
recordkeeping reviews, audits, compliance assistance and outreach, and
non-criminal enforcement. EPA will retain authority for implementing
the RM Program for all other chemicals at these facilities, and for the
RM Program generally in North Dakota for all other facilities.

II. Background

A. Risk Management Program Background

    On January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4493), EPA promulgated (along with
various other provisions) the ``List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention and Risk Management
Programs for Chemical Accident Release Prevention.'' See 40 CFR 68.130.
The list, known as Tables 1 to 4 in section 68.130, sets forth the list
of regulated substances and thresholds under CAA Section 112(r).
Anhydrous ammonia is a regulated substance under section 112(r) based
on a mandate from Congress and its subsequent inclusion on the list in
Tables 1 and 2 in section 68.130. Tables 1 and 2 are identical lists of
toxic chemicals arranged alphabetically in Table 1 and by Chemical
Abstract Service (CAS) number in Table 2.
    Part 68 also sets forth the requirements for owners or operators of
stationary sources concerning the prevention of accidental releases.
The regulations address the safe design, operation, and maintenance of
covered processes and emergency response to accidental releases that
may occur. The regulations also include requirements for the
development and submission of RMPs by regulated sources. The RMP is
required to include information about the regulated stationary source
and about the source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and
emergency response program.

B. Delegation of Section 112 Programs

    Section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E authorize
EPA to approve state rules and programs to be implemented and enforced
in place of certain CAA requirements, including the RM Program set
forth at 40 CFR part 68. EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart E on
November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262) and subsequently amended these
regulations on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55810).
    Under 40 CFR 63.91(a), a state must satisfy requirements under 40
CFR 63.91(d) to obtain delegation of a section 112 program. If the
state adopts federal rules unchanged, then only the criteria in 40 CFR
63.91(d) are required, except for delegation of the RM Program for
which the provisions of 40 CFR 63.95 must also be met. See 40 CFR
63.91(a)(1) and (a)(4).
    Under 40 CFR 63.91(d), the state may either reference approval of a
Title V program or directly satisfy the requirements in (d)(3)(i)-(v).
These requirements include:
     A written finding by the State Attorney General that the
state has the necessary legal authority to implement and enforce the
program and to assure compliance;
     Copies of the state's statutes and regulations granting
authority to implement the program;
     A demonstration that the state has adequate resources to
implement and enforce the program;
     A schedule demonstrating expeditious implementation of the
program; and
     A plan that assures expeditious compliance, including a
complete description of the state's compliance tracking and enforcement
program.

If a State's legal authorities substantially meet the requirements
above (set out in detail in 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(i)), but are not fully
approvable, EPA may grant partial approval with the State's consent and
the EPA will continue to implement those authorities that are not
approved. See 40 CFR 63.91(f).
    Under 40 CFR 63.95(b), the State's part 68 program shall contain
the following elements, consistent with the procedures in Sec.  63.91,
for at least the

chemicals listed in 40 CFR part 68, subpart F, that an approvable State
Accidental Release Prevention program is regulating:
     A demonstration of the state's authority and resources to
implement and enforce regulations that are no less stringent than the
regulations of 40 CFR part 68, subparts A through G and 40 CFR 68.200;
and
     A requirement that any source subject to the State's part
68 program submit a RMP that reports at least the same information in
the same format as required under part 68, subpart G; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 40 CFR 63.95(b)(2), a State's RM Program may require
reporting of information not required by the Federal program, and
these requirements (like any other additional State requirements)
will become federally enforceable upon approval. In this case, NDDA
has directly adopted by reference the Federal program in part 68,
including the reporting requirements of subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Procedures for reviewing RMPs and providing technical
assistance to stationary sources including small businesses.
     A demonstration of the State's authority to enforce all
part 68 requirements must be made, including an auditing strategy that
complies with section 68.220.

For a program that covers all of the federally-listed chemicals (a
``complete program'') or a program covering less than all of the
federally-listed chemicals (a ``partial program'') the State must take
delegation of the full part 68 program for the federally-listed
chemicals it regulates.

C. North Dakota's Request for Delegation

    In late 2009 and early 2010, NDDA initiated conversations with EPA
Region 8 regarding the procedure for receiving partial delegation of
the RM Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities. EPA
provided NDDA information regarding the delegation process through
various email correspondence, phone conversations and meetings. On
February 17, 2011, EPA Region 8 sent NDDA a letter formally recognizing
NDDA's interest in receiving partial delegation of the RM program, and
describing the basic requirements for the NDDA to request and receive
partial delegation of the RM Program.
    NDDA has in place a program for regulation of certain aspects of
anhydrous ammonia facilities, but this program does not address RM
Program requirements. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 19-20.2 provides
general authority for NDDA to license and regulate anhydrous ammonia
facilities with a capacity exceeding six thousand gallons. NDCC 19-20.2
contains engineering requirements for tanks, valve fittings, and other
equipment to ensure that tanks and appurtenances are structurally sound
and properly maintained. NDCC 19-20.2 also includes siting requirements
that specify minimum distances between anhydrous ammonia storage tanks
and adjoining property lines, residences, places of public assembly,
and institutional residences. NDCC 19-20.2 also provides NDDA authority
to enter any public or private premises to inspect equipment and
respond to complaints. If violations are found, NDCC 19-20.2 allows
NDDA to issue cease and desist orders, revoke or suspend facility
licenses, and issue civil penalties.
    On April 18, 2011, the North Dakota Legislative Assembly enacted
House Bill 1321, which created NDCC 19-20.3. NDCC 19-20.3 was enacted
in anticipation of NDDA requesting and assuming partial delegation for
the RM Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities. NDCC 19-
20.3 became effective April 1, 2013. NDCC 19-20.3-01 gives the
Agriculture Commissioner authority to determine compliance with the RM
Program requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 68 by providing the
Commissioner authority to:
    1. Request information from any person that sells, stores, or
handles anhydrous ammonia for agricultural purposes, and is required to
comply with the risk management program requirements.
    2. Conduct inspections of any person that sells, stores, or handles
anhydrous ammonia for agricultural purposes, and is required to comply
with the risk management program requirements.
    3. Obtain and review RMPs required under 40 CFR part 68, and other
records applicable to any person that sells, stores, or handles
anhydrous ammonia for agricultural purposes, and is required to comply
with the risk management program requirements.
    NDCC 19-20.3 also provides the Agriculture Commissioner with
enforcement authority when RM Program violations are identified.
Specifically, NDCC 19-20.3-02 states that the Commissioner may:
    1. Bring an action to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation;
    2. Issue a cease and desist order; and
    3. Impose a civil penalty through an administrative hearing in an
amount not exceeding ten thousand dollars per day for each violation.
    On September 13, 2012, NDDA submitted to EPA a request to receive
partial delegation of authority to implement and enforce the RM
Program. This request included the following documents (which are
included in the docket for this action):
     A summary of the State's anhydrous ammonia regulatory
authority and general components of a proposed RMP enforcement program;
     A copy of NDCC 19-20.2;
     A copy of NDCC 19-20.3;
     A letter from the North Dakota Attorney General asserting
authority of the Agriculture Commissioner to enforce the RM Program;
     A proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NDDA
and the EPA;
     A proposed RMP enforcement response policy;
     A proposed administrative rule for incorporating by
reference 40 CFR part 68 into North Dakota's regulations (NDAC 7-12-
03).
    EPA reviewed the information provided with the request for partial
delegation, and requested further information in December 2012. In
addition, EPA responded to NDDA's request on December 13, 2012,
acknowledging the receipt of the request for partial delegation, and
describing the steps required by EPA to delegate the RM Program to
NDDA.
    On February 26, 2013, NDDA submitted further information in
response to EPA's request. The response provided EPA with a revised
letter from the Attorney General addressing specific questions and
concerns raised by EPA and a revised summary of North Dakota's
regulatory authority and general components of the proposed enforcement
program. The response indicated that North Dakota was amending a
portion of its previous request and excluding the criminal enforcement
authority required under 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) from its
partial delegation request. The response discussed the status of North
Dakota's rulemaking process to incorporate the RM Program into its
regulations. The response also described how the requirements of 40 CFR
63.95(b)(3) and (b)(4) would be met, as well as a description of how
EPA concerns regarding the proposed MOU were met.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MOU between EPA and the NDDA, while not a delegation
requirement, is intended to ensure regular communication between the
two Agencies to ensure effective enforcement of the RM program by
NDDA. The purposes of the MOU are to promote the identification and
coordination of the section 112(r)(7) RM Program compliance and
enforcement activities pertaining to agricultural bulk anhydrous
ammonia facilities, to describe both parties' mutual understanding
of compliance responsibilities, and to avoid replication and
duplication of efforts while discharging the parties' respective
duties. By November 30 of each year, North Dakota plans to provide
EPA Region 8 with an end of year report that summarizes North
Dakota's RM Program regulatory activities for the previous federal
fiscal year. The report is expected to include information on the
number of RM Program inspections conducted, number and types of
violations identified, notable cases, description of the enforcement
actions taken, number and description of RM Program compliance
assistance activities, and other information related to RM Program
enforcement. The MOU ensures ongoing communication regarding NDDA
enforcement of the RM Program by NDDA providing EPA with an
enforcement targeting scheme at the beginning of each federal fiscal
year. The targeting scheme is expected to identify facilities
scheduled for initial or follow-up inspection for the upcoming
federal fiscal year and priority areas for regulation. NDDA will
also notify EPA of accidents at regulated facilities that cause
environmental damage, personal injury, property damage, or involve
releases of 100 lbs or more. EPA and NDDA plan to share facility and
chemical data base information, progress reports, and results of
inspections to the extent that the information is not confidential.

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

    On April 1, 2013, North Dakota incorporated by reference into its
regulations the provisions of 40 CFR part 68 \3\ as published on June
30, 2011, with only one adjustment. See NDAC 7-12-03. This adjustment
clarifies North Dakota is incorporating 40 CFR part 68 only insofar as
it applies to agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities. NDAC 7-12-03-
02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Consistent with 40 CFR 63.95(b), North Dakota did not
incorporate the following sections into its regulations: 40 CFR
68.120 (Petition Process), 40 CFR 68.210 (Availability of
Information to the Public), and 40 CFR 68.215 (Permit Content and
Air Permitting Authority or Designated Agency Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reviewed the additional information provided by North Dakota
and requested additional information on proposed enforcement tracking.
On April 18, 2013, NDDA provided EPA with a ``Revised Summary of North
Dakota's Anhydrous Ammonia Regulatory Authority and General Components
of a Proposed RMP Enforcement Program.'' On June 3, 2013, EPA Region 8
determined that the delegation package was complete, and sent NDDA a
letter confirming the determination.

III. EPA's Analysis of NDDA's Submittal

    Based on NDDA's partial delegation request, and applicable laws and
regulations, EPA is proposing to approve the request as it appears NDDA
has satisfied the relevant criteria of 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.95. EPA is
treating NDDA's request as a request for straight partial delegation
under 40 CFR 63.91(a)(1), (4) and (f), since North Dakota has
incorporated by reference the RM Program in 40 CFR part 68 as described
above.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(i), the North Dakota
Assistant Attorney General submitted a written finding of NDDA's
authority to implement and enforce the RM Program for agricultural
anhydrous ammonia facilities.\4\ The Assistant Attorney General
supplemented this finding to clarify that the NDDA does not have the
criminal enforcement authority specified in section 70.11(a)(3)(ii) and
(iii). As a result, North Dakota has not requested delegation of that
criminal enforcement authority. With respect to the remaining
requirements, North Dakota demonstrated the appropriate authority for
section 70.11(a)(1) (ability to enjoin activity in violation of a
permit that is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the public health or welfare, or the environment), section 70.11(a)(2)
(ability to enjoin violation of any program requirement), and section
70.11(a)(3)(i) (ability to assess civil penalties up to $10,000 per day
of violation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ North Dakota originally relied on authority under NDCC 19-
20.2 for its adoption of the RM Program. NDCC 19-20.2 defined
anhydrous ammonia storage facility as a bulk anhydrous ammonia
storage facility with a capacity exceeding six thousand gallons. 40
CFR 68.130 sets a threshold quantity for accidental release
prevention at ten thousand pounds, or approximately one thousand
nine hundred forty gallons. EPA discussed this gap in potential
coverage with the State. The Attorney General's supplemental finding
identified NDDA's general rulemaking authority along with the grant
of authority under NDCC 19-20.3 as appropriate authority for
adoption of the RM Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia
facilities with the appropriate threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Assistant Attorney General also determined that NDDA had
adequate authority to assure compliance with the RM Program for sources
subject to these provisions. As explained above, NDCC 19-20.3 provides
NDDA with authority to request information from and conduct inspections
of such sources, as required by 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(i)(B) and (C).
    In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(ii)-(v), NDDA submitted
copies of the appropriate provisions of State statutes and regulations,
documentation of adequate resources to implement and enforce the RM
Program, and a schedule and plan to assure expeditious implementation
and compliance by all sources, including a description of the State's
compliance tracking and enforcement program (including inspection
strategies). With respect to adequate resources and expeditious
implementation, the NDDA currently has three employees devoted almost
entirely to program implementation. With respect to expeditious
compliance, NDDA already conducts inspections of anhydrous ammonia
facilities once every five years to ensure compliance with NDCC 19-
20.2. There are currently 368 licensed facilities in the State, which
requires NDDA to inspect approximately 70 facilities each year. NDDA
will conduct RM Program compliance inspections and audits while
conducting inspections for the engineering requirements found in NDCC
19-20.2.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed above, NDCC 19-20.3 gives the Agriculture
Commissioner the authority to conduct inspections and access records
necessary to verify compliance with the RM Program. NDCC 19-20.3
also provides the legal authority for the NDDA to access, review and
audit RMPs from regulated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 40 CFR 63.95(b)(1), NDDA submitted information
which demonstrates that it has the authority and resources to implement
and enforce regulations that are no less stringent than the regulations
in 40 CFR part 68, subparts A through G and section 68.200, and a
requirement that subject sources submit a RMP that reports at least the
same information in the same format to the same location as required
under 40 CFR part 68, subpart G. As required by 40 CFR 63.95(b)(3)-(4),
NDDA submitted documentation that it has adequate procedures for
reviewing RMPs, providing technical assistance to stationary sources,
including small businesses, and auditing RMPs in a manner consistent
with 40 CFR 68.220. In particular, NDDA will review and audit RMPs as
part of the inspections described above. The NDDA also anticipates
providing technical assistance, including outreach and education, by
conducting annual safety and compliance meetings with regulated persons
as a tool to increase awareness of the RM Program requirements and
improving compliance.
    If this proposal is finalized, NDDA will have primary authority and
responsibility to implement and enforce (with the exception of criminal
enforcement) the RM Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia
facilities. However, nothing shall preclude, limit, or interfere with
the authority of EPA to exercise its outreach and compliance
assistance, enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering
authorities concerning this part of the Act. If EPA determines that
NDDA's procedures for enforcing or implementing the 40 CFR part 63 or
40 CFR part 68 requirements are inadequate, or are not being
effectively carried out, this delegation may be revoked in whole or in
part in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 63.96(b).
    In addition, this delegation to NDDA will not extend to sources or
activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.
Under this definition,

EPA treats as reservations, trust lands validly set aside for the use
of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as
a reservation. Consistent with previous federal program approvals or
delegations, EPA will continue to implement the RM Program in Indian
country because NDDA has not demonstrated authority over sources and
activities located within the exterior boundaries of Indian
reservations and other areas in Indian country.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes approving NDDA's request for partial delegation of
authority to implement and enforce (with the exception of criminal
enforcement) the RM Program for agricultural anhydrous ammonia
facilities. NDDA has incorporated by reference Federal requirements set
forth in 40 CFR part 68 in NDAC 7-12-03 and regulates agricultural
anhydrous ammonia facilities through this authority as well as its
authority in NDCC 19-20.2 and 19-20.3. This partial delegation will
extend to agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities which are sources
subject to the accidental release prevention regulations in 40 CFR part
68, with the exception of sources in Indian country.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Risk management program, Air pollution
control, Hazardous substances, Chemicals, Intergovernmental relations.

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

    Dated: October 22, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-26356 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P