[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61470-61475]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19114]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0050, 0051 and 0052; FRL-11235-02-OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``the EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds three sites to the General Superfund
section of the NPL.

DATES: The rule is effective on October 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
     Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW;
William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, Site Assessment and Remedy
Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mail code 5204T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].
    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
4 Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mail code 3SD12,
Philadelphia, PA 19103;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303;
(404) 562-8926.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; (312)
886-4465.
     Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mail code SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
(214) 665-3154.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; (913) 551-
7956.
     David Fronczak, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S.
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail code 8SEM-EM-P, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
(303) 312-6096.
     Matt Mitguard, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD-6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
(415) 972-3096.
     Brandon Perkins, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail code 13-J07, Seattle, WA 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
    K. What is State/Tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
    B. What documents are available for review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
    C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional
dockets?
    D. How do I access the documents?
    E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    A. Additions to the NPL
    B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR
part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section'') and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency
policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL. (2) Each State may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the State.
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with a
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions''
(40 CFR 300.5).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on
the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The EPA may
pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities
for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature
and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability
to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with
States on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important
Superfund accomplishments, and the measure reflects the high priority
the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of
the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This
measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is
complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional
or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many
occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness
of human health and the environment for current and future land uses,
in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go
to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse.

K. What is State/Tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with States and Tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the States and Tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://
www.epa.gov/

superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
    The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which State
and Tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured State and Tribal correspondence that: (1)
Explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for
proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the State intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3)
emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing States
that information on their responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and States and
Tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?

    Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA
headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification
numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section
II.D.

                  Docket Identification Numbers by Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Site name             City/county, state     Docket ID No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Metals Corp Whiting...  Hammond, IN.......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0
                                                       050.
Capitol Lakes...................  Baton Rouge, LA...  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0
                                                       051.
Fansteel Metals/FMRI............  Muskogee, OK......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0
                                                       052.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters
docket?

    The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score
sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to
compute the score, a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL
listing of the site. These documents are also available online at
https://www.regulations.gov.

C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?

    The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the
headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating
the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the
regional dockets.

D. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents that support this rule online at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA HQ docket or appropriate
regional docket. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the individual regional dockets for hours. For
addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see ADDRESSES
section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name.

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following three sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL
based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.

                        General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                    Site name          City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN..............................  Federated Metals    Hammond.
                                   Corp Whiting.
LA..............................  Capitol Lakes.....  Baton Rouge.
OK..............................  Fansteel Metals/    Muskogee.
                                   FMRI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?

    The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule
and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding three sites
to the NPL in this final rule. All three sites were proposed for
addition to the NPL on March 29, 2023 (88 FR 18499).
    Comments on the Federated Metals Corp Whiting site are being
addressed in a response to comment support document available in the
public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on
the site, as well as EPA's response, please refer to the support
document available at https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA received no
comments on the Fansteel Metals/FMRI site. Below is a summary of
significant comments received on the remaining site.
    Capitol Lakes:
    The EPA received one comment supporting the listing of the Capitol
Lakes site and two other comments that did not oppose the addition of
the site to the NPL. In support of listing, a private citizen expressed
concern about the contamination associated with the site and the
impacts to aquatic habitats, noting that mitigation measures would be
beneficial. An additional private citizen that did not oppose the
listing expressed concern over the contamination identified in the
Capitol Lakes.
    Paramount Global, while not opposing the placement of the Capitol
Lakes site on the NPL, submitted comments asserting that attribution of
the observed release, even in part, to the former Westinghouse facility
is not supported by available information. Paramount Global stated that
Westinghouse completed remedial activities to address contamination at
the former Westinghouse facility and received a ``no further action''
determination from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) following its remedial activities. Paramount Global commented
that this determination was received prior to LDEQ's subsequent human
health risk assessment of Capitol Lakes. Paramount Global asserted that
these past remedial activities and determination from LDEQ indicated
that the observed release in Capitol Lakes could not be attributed to
former Westinghouse facility.
    The Capitol Lakes site was evaluated as a contaminated sediment
plume with no identified source because the EPA could not attribute the
increase in hazardous substance concentrations in

Capitol Lakes to a particular source or sources. Due to the large
number of industrial and commercial activities in the area, the EPA was
unable to attribute the observed release to a particular site or sites,
including the former Westinghouse facility. The evaluation of a
significant increase in contamination in Capitol Lakes was not
challenged by the commenter.
    In explaining the HRS scoring approach, the EPA noted in the HRS
documentation record at proposal that there are many possible sources
of the hazardous substances identified in the sub-watershed; however,
``sampling failed to demonstrate attribution of the increase in
contaminant levels to any specific source.'' Specifically, the HRS
documentation record at proposal indicated that, following a review of
databases, there were multiple possible sources identified in the
vicinity that included municipal and State facilities, railyards, and
various commercial and industrial facilities; samples from multiple
drainage pathways discharging to Capitol Lakes were also collected.
    Regarding attribution to the Westinghouse facility, the HRS
documentation record at proposal explained that while PCBs had been
previously identified at the Westinghouse facility, other nearby
facilities had also been identified. The HRS documentation record at
proposal stated that, the Westinghouse facility ``was identified as one
of the sources of PCB contamination in the drainage canal'' and
Westinghouse implemented runoff control measures and removed
contaminated soil following State direction to clean up PCB
contamination at its property. The HRS documentation record at proposal
also indicated that the ``LDEQ also identified multiple other
government and private sector facilities'' that may have been
associated with PCB contamination. As a result of the commingled PCB
and other hazardous substances contamination from known and unknown
possible sources, the HRS documentation record at proposal indicated
that the significant increase of hazardous substances in the observed
release samples in the Capitol Lakes could not be attributed to any
known source or sources. Evaluating this site without attributing the
observed release to a source or sources is consistent with the HRS
because the HRS indicates that no separate attribution is needed when
the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified
source.
    Placing a site on the NPL is based on an evaluation, in accordance
with the HRS, of a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. A subsequent stage of the
Superfund process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes
conditions and hazards at the site more comprehensively. The EPA will
continue to examine a site to determine what response, if any, is
appropriate, during subsequent stages of the Superfund process.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, State, local or Tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a Tribe or require a Tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As discussed in section I.C. of the preamble to this
action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as
it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the
NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need
be taken.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C.
801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if
Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of
disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision
that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a
legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS
v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of
the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir.
1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA
has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
300, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 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.

0
2. Amend table 1 of appendix B to part 300 by adding entries for ``IN,
Federated Metals Corp Whiting'', ``LA, Capitol Lakes'', and ``OK,
Fansteel Metals/FMRI'' in alphabetical order by State to read as
follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                            Site name                  City/county            Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN.....................................  Federated Metals Corp       Hammond...................
                                          Whiting.

                                                  * * * * * * *
LA.....................................  Capitol Lakes.............  Baton Rouge...............

                                                  * * * * * * *
OK.....................................  Fansteel Metals/FMRI......  Muskogee..................               S

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
  score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2023-19114 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7575-7578]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0874; Project Identifier AD-2022-00337-T;
Amendment 39-22307; AD 2023-01-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-
9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder
(DAH) indicating that certain center wing lower stringers are subject
to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). WFD analysis found that fatigue
cracks could grow to a critical length after the structural
modification point (SMP) for these center wing lower stringers. This AD
requires replacing certain left and right side center wing lower
stringers. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 13, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 13,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0874; 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, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0874.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manuel Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and
DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2022 (87 FR 53419). The
NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that certain
center wing lower stringers are subject to WFD. WFD analysis found that
fatigue cracks could grow to a critical length after the SMP for these
center wing lower stringers. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
replacing certain left and right side center wing lower stringers. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address potential fatigue cracking of the
right and left side center wing lower stringers S-11 through S-22
between wing stations Xcw=13 and Xcw=15. If not addressed, undetected
fatigue cracks could grow to a critical length after the SMP at 81,740
total flight cycles. Any undetected cracks in three or more adjacent
stringers in the right or left side center wing lower stringers S-11
through S-22 may result in a principal structural element's inability
to sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane. Performing the replacement required by this
AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by AD 2020-10-10
Amendment 39-19913 (85 FR 31046, May 22, 2020) (AD 2020-10-10, which
addresses the unsafe condition until the airplane reaches the SMP).

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments on the NPRM from Boeing, and three
individuals. The comments from one individual were outside the scope of
this rulemaking. The following presents the comments received and the
FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Allow Certified Non-Boeing Mechanics To Perform Replacements

    An individual requested that a certified mechanic not hired by
Boeing be allowed to perform the replacement specified in the proposed
AD. The commenter stated that it appears that Boeing must take care of
the replacements, which must be paid for by the airplanes' owners,
which could create a conflict of interest. Another commenter suggested
that an external party should inspect the repaired airplanes to ensure
no further issues will arise.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. Unless specified otherwise, ADs allow an
FAA-approved licensed mechanic authorized to do maintenance to perform
the replacement actions. Operators may therefore use a qualified
mechanic of their choice, and do not have to use a Boeing employee for
the replacements. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain Language in the Background Section of the
Proposed AD

    Boeing requested that certain language in the Background section of
the proposed AD be changed for clarification. Boeing asked that a
sentence describing AD 2020-10-10 be revised. The sentence in the NPRM
reads: ``AD 2020-10-10 requires repetitive inspections for cracking in
the left and right side center wing lower skin at stringers S-18
through S-20, the fastener holes common to stringers S-11 through S-22,
and the forward and aft skins, and repair.'' Boeing asked that the
sentence be revised to read: ``AD 2020-10-10 requires repetitive
inspections for cracking in the left and right side fastener holes
common to stringers S-11 through S-22 and the forward and aft skins,
and center wing lower skin at stringers S-18 through S-20, and
repair.'' Boeing stated that the revised language would correctly
identify the inspection requirements and list them in the same order as
the description in the service information.
    The FAA agrees that the proposed wording better matches the
description in the service information. However, that sentence is not
carried over to this final rule. Therefore, the FAA has not changed
this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain Language in Paragraph (e) of the Proposed AD

    Boeing requested that the language in paragraph (e) of the proposed
AD be clarified to specify that this AD is being issued to address
``potential'' fatigue cracking. Boeing stated that not all structure
subject to replacement will have developed fatigue cracking and that
the required action involves proactive replacement.
    The FAA agrees with the request to change the language. The phrase
``address fatigue cracking'' in paragraph (e) of this AD has been
changed to read ``address potential fatigue cracking.''

Request To Clarify Certain Language in the Explanation of Compliance
Time Paragraph of the Proposed AD

    Boeing requested that the language in the Explanation of Compliance
Time paragraph of the proposed AD be changed for clarification. Boeing
stated that all structure subject to replacement is certified type
design and not all will have developed fatigue cracking, therefore
replacing the term ``discrepant structure'' with the term ``certain
structure'' would be more consistent with the language of the SUMMARY
section.
    The FAA agrees that not all structure subject to replacement will
have developed fatigue cracks at SMP. However, that sentence is not
carried over to this final rule. Therefore, the FAA has not changed
this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD80-57A246 RB,
dated December 17, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for replacement of the center wing lower stringers S-11 through S-22
between Xcw=0 and Xcw=121.688, left and right sides.

    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 ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...........................  1,572 work-hours x $85          $216,000        $349,620      $7,691,640
                                         per hour = $133,620.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-01-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-22307; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0874; Project Identifier AD-2022-00337-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 13, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2020-10-10, Amendment 39-19913 (85 FR 31046,
May 22, 2020) (AD 2020-10-10).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-
9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and
Model MD-88 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified
in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD80-57A246 RB, dated December
17, 2021.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the center wing lower stringers S-11
through S-22 are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The FAA
is issuing this AD to address potential fatigue cracking of the
right and left side center wing lower stringers S-11 through S-22
between wing stations Xcw=13 and Xcw=15. If not addressed,
undetected fatigue cracks could grow to a critical length after the
structural modification point (SMP) at 81,740 total flight cycles.
Any undetected cracks in three or more adjacent stringers in the
right or left side center wing lower stringers S-11 through S-22 may
result in a principal structural element's inability to sustain
limit load, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin MD80-57A246 RB, dated December 17, 2021,
do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
MD80-57A246 RB, dated December 17, 2021.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A246, dated December 17, 2021, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin MD80-57A246 RB, dated December 17, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD80-57A246 RB, dated
December 17, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for replacement
instructions: This AD requires doing the replacement using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2020-10-10

    Accomplishment of the replacement specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
MD80-57A246 RB, dated December 17, 2021, terminates all of the
requirements of AD 2020-10-10.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Manuel Hernandez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5256; email: [email protected].

(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD80-57A246 RB, dated
December 17, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this 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, [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 13, 2023.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-02371 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68136-68137]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0348]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Practices of Household Goods Brokers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval
to revise an ICR titled ``Practices of Household Brokers'' to no longer
include one-time costs previously incurred by brokers to come into
compliance with 49 CFR part 371, and to update other wage related costs
that have changed since the last approval. This ICR is necessary to
support the requirements of subpart B of 49 CFR part 371 and FMCSA's
responsibility to ensure consumer protection in the transportation of
household goods (HHG).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2013-0348 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brodie Mack, Commercial
Enforcement and Investigations Division, Household Goods Team Leader,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: FMCSA, in response to Title IV, Subtitle B of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59) and a petition for rulemaking
from the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA), amended 49 CFR
part 371, existing regulations for brokers, with a Final Rule titled,
``Brokers of Household Goods Transportation by Motor Vehicles'' (75 FR
72987), November 29, 2010, providing additional consumer protection
responsibilities for brokers of HHG.
    Section 4212 of SAFETEA-LU directs the Secretary to require HHG
brokers to provide individual shippers with the following information
whenever a broker has contact with a shipper or potential shipper:
    1. The broker's USDOT number.
    2. The FMCSA booklet titled ``Your Rights and Responsibilities When
You Move.''
    3. A list of all authorized motor carriers providing transportation
of HHG used by the broker and a statement that the broker is not a
motor carrier providing transportation of HHG.
    FMCSA, as the result of a rulemaking that took effect November 29,
2010, amended 49 CFR part 371 by adding subpart B, specific consumer
protection requirements for HHG brokers. The

collection of information required by this rulemaking assist shippers
in their business dealings with interstate HHG brokers. The information
collected is used by prospective shippers to make informed decisions
about contracts, services ordered, executed, and settled. The HHG
broker is often the primary contact for individual shippers and in the
best position to educate shippers and prepare them for a successful
move. The information collected makes that possible. To combat
deceptive business practices this helps enforcement personnel to better
protect consumers by verifying that shippers are receiving information
they are entitled to by regulation.
    HHG brokers are required to provide individual shippers the ``Your
Rights and Responsibilities When You Move'' booklet and the ``Ready to
Move'' brochure. They have the option of providing paper copies or
presenting the information through a link on their Internet Web site.
The broker is required to document with signed receipts that the
individual shipper was provided those materials. HHG brokers are also
required to provide the list of HHG motor carriers for which it would
arrange transportation to move a potential individual shipper's HHG,
and that broker's identification information:
    1. Assigned USDOT number; and
    2. Address.
    Title: Practices of Household Goods Brokers.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0048.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Brokers of Household Goods.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 690.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes per day x 240 workdays for
household goods broker transactions.
    Expiration Date: February 28, 2014.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 89,607 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will reference your comments in
the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: November
1, 2013.
G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-27115 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 23470-23471]
[DOCID:fr19my09-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Nashua Municipal Airport, Nashua, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps for Nashua Municipal
Airport, as submitted by the Nashua Airport Authority under the
provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR Part 150, are in compliance with
applicable requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure maps is April 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for Nashua Municipal Airport are
in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective April
29, 2009.
    Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps that meet
applicable regulations and that depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport.
    An airport operator who has submitted such noise exposure maps that
are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of
the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that
sets forth the measures the operator has taken, or proposes, for the
introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and
related descriptions submitted by the Nashua Airport Authority. The
specific maps under consideration were Figure 1. Existing (2009) Noise
Exposure Map and Figure 2. Future (2014) Noise Exposure Map in the
submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Nashua Municipal
Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This
determination is effective on April 29, 2009.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise

compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
    If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA
is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map or
with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section
150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has
been accomplished.
    Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of
the maps are available for examination at the following locations:

Nashua Airport Authority, Nashua Municipal Airport, Boire Field, 93
Perimeter Rd., Nashua, NH 03063 or:
Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on April 29, 2009.
LaVerne Reid,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. E9-11594 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM							June 27, 2007

SUBJECT:	Dietary Risk Assessment (Indirect Food Contact) from Indoor Uses of Bromonitrostyrene (BNS)

From:	A. Najm Shamim, PhD., Chemist

	Regulatory Management Branch II

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

To:	Jenny Tao, Risk Assessor for BNS

	Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

			And

	ShaRon Carlisle, CRM for BNS RED Process

	Regulatory Management Branch II

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Thru:	Diane Isbell, Acting Team leader,

	Regulatory Management Branch II

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

		And

	Mark Hartman, Chief

	Regulatory Management Branch II

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

DP Barcode:

			EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	As required by the RED process, Antimicrobials Division has assessed the risks involved in the indoor use of Bromonitrostyrene for the indirect food contact scenarios.

There are no risk concerns from the use of BNS on: paper/paperboard, paper coatings and adhesives. The aPADs and cPADs for these uses fall well below Agency’s level of concerns.

DIETARY RISK ASSESSMENT OF  BNS FROM INDRIECT FOOD CONTACT SURFACES

Background:

AD’s label search has shown that Bromonitrostyrene(BNS) is used in the following table use patterns  trigger indirect food contact scenarios and a dietary risk assessment becomes necessary.

					Table I

Product Name/EPA REG#	Use Scenario	Application Rate

Canguard 777/464-686	Paper mill/pulp	0.3 lbs./ton paper of 25% formulation

Canguard 777/464-686	Paperboard	8 lbs/ton  of 25% formulation

Canguard 777/464-686	Paper coatings	2.0 lbs/ 1000 lbs of product

Canguard 777/464-686	Adhesives/sealants	2.0  lbs/1000 lbs of product

Canguard 777/464-686	Printing inks	2.0 lbs/1000 lbs of product

Canguard 777/464-686	Coatings/ mineral slurries	2.0 lbs/1000 lbs of product

	RESIDUE CHEMISTRY

	All uses of BNS are nonagricultural, and no residue chemistry data based on Agency’s Residue Chemistry Guidelines (OPPTS GLN 860.xxx) were submitted nor the Agency asked for it.  Therefore, The Agency has used available methods to estimate BNS residues on food due to migration of this chemical, when this chemical comes in to contact with food-contact paper. In this regard Food and Drug Administration has developed guidelines to estimate residues in food due to migration into food.

Detailed Discussion:

FDA METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ESTIMATED DAILY INTAKE (EDI) OF A PESTICIDE USE IN A FOOD CONTACT PAPER

1)	Paper/ Paperboard Use

	FDA1,2, Method makes a number of assumptions for calculating migration of active (in this case BIT) from food contact surfaces (paper): 1. Food contact surface (paper) can be a one time use/day or a repeat use material; 2. Consumption factor (CF) or fraction of daily food which comes in to contact with the packaging surface (paper). CF represents the actual weight of food that comes into contact with the paper to the weight of all food packaged with paper; 3. The CF varies from one type of packaging (type of paper) to the other (type of paper). FDA methodology of migration of active assumes a 100% migration to the food commodities(This represents a worst case scenario).

Note:	According to the label (Reg#: 777/464-686)  8 lbs of BNS is used for 2000 lbs of product (in this case paper, paperboards). Since 25% of the active is used,  2 lbs of BNS will be used for 2000 lbs of paper products.

 Assume 2000 lbs paper ~ 1 ton paper.

2 lb active /2000 lb of finished paper = 908 ppm active  mg/kg of  finished paper

 But the paper slurry is 1% ; 908 mg x 01 = 9.08  active mg/kg of finished paper = ~ 10 ppm of active in the paper slurry= Application Rate

Application rate x % water / % pulp = 10 ppm = 5µg/g pulp slurry x 0.67g water/0.33.g pulp = 20 µ g of active/g pulp.

Consumption Factor (CF) = 0.10

	Likely amount of BNS  migrating into food:

 ⁄ mass of pulp x 0.92 g pulp∕ g of paper x 0.05 g ∕ in2 x 1 in2 ∕ 10 g food = 0.092µ g of BNS ∕ g food

Since the Consumption factor for paper, based on FDA’s methodology is 0.10

The  actual amount of BNS in daily diet will be:

0.092µg of BNS∕ g food x 0.10 = 0.0092 µg ∕ g food

Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) of BNS for an adult:

0.0092µg of BNS ∕ g food x 3000 g food =27.6µg of BNS/person/day

Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) of BNS for a child:

0.0092µg of BNS ∕ g food x 1500 g food = 13.8 µg of BNS /person/ day

AD’s End Points Selection Committee (An AD Memo by Tim McMahon to Jenny Tao, 2006  determined both the Acute dietary and chronic dietary end points and based on the selection, the aRfD and cRfD respectively are: 0.37 mg/kg/day and 0.037 mg/kg/day

In Table II estimations are given for % aPAD and % cPAD.

				Table II

		Dietary Exposure from Paper/Pulp/ Paperboard

Dietary Conc. of  BNS	Estimated Daily Intake (EDI)	Daily Dietary Dose (DDD): mg/kg/day	% aPAD

(aPAD = 0.37 mg/kg/day)	% cPAD (cPAD = 0.037 mg/kg/day)

20.0 µ g	Adult: 27.6 µg

	Adult: 27.6 µg/70 kg/day = 0.00039 mg/kg/day

	Adult: 0.00039 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.37 mg/kg/day x 100

= 0.105%	Adult: 0.00039 mg/kg/day/0.037 mg/kg/day x 100 = 0.0105 %

	Child: 13.8  µg 	Child: 13.8µg/ 15 kg/day = 0.00092 mg/kg/day	Child: 0.00092 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.37 mg/kg/day = 0.24% 	Child: 0.00092 mg/kg/day / 0.037 mg/kg/day = 0.024%

The calculations of % aPAD and cPAD show that there are no acute dietary concerns from the migration of BNS from paper to food.

Adhesive Use

As a matter of policy, AD has assessed adhesive use as an indirect food use.  Since it is likely that adhesives may end up in the food packaging materials, and this may result in the migration of the pesticide into the food indirectly.  For the indirect food dietary assessment, AD has adopted Food & Drug Administration (FDA) methodology.  For adhesive use, FDA has provided guidance for dietary estimation that a maximum of 7 ppb of a pesticide is likely to migrate from the food packaging materials into the food. The quantity of 7 ppb can be used to calculate the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI), Daily Dietary Dose (DDD), and using the acute and dietary end points from toxicity data, one calculates the overall risks to general and subgroups of populations ( % aPAD, and % cPAD).

For the present case: FDA’s assumptions are: 1) Maximum migration of BNS  into food from adhesive use = 7 ppb = 7µg/g; 2) Maximum adult food intake = 3000 g; 3) Maximum food intake for a child = 1500 g.

In general, % PAD = DDD/% a PAD or % cPAD.

Table III gives estimates of % cPAD for adhesive use of BNS

.

					Table III

			Dietary Exposure from Adhesive Use

Use	Dietary Conc. (ppb)	Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) µg/p/day	Daily Dietary Dose (DDD) mg/kg/day

	% aPAD

(aPAD= 0.37 mg/kg/d)	% cPAD

( cPAD = 0.037 mg/kg/d)

Adhesive	7	Adult: 7µg/g x 3000g = 21 µg/p/day

Child: 7 µg/g x 1500 g = 10.5 µg/p/day	Adult: 21 µg/70 kg/day = 0.0003 mg/kg/day

Child: 10.5 µg/15kg/day = 0.0007 mg/kg/day	Adult: 0.0003/0.37 x 100) = 0.081%

Child: 0.0007/0.37 x100 = 0.019%	Adult:  0.0003 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.037 mg/kg/day x100 = 0.81%

Child: 0.0007 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.037 mg/kg/day x 100  = 0.19 %

These calculations assume that the adhesive use is 100% of the chemical produced, which is not a likely scenario. The actual % cPAD is going to be much lower than the estimated one The Agency has no chronic dietary concerns from the use of BNS in adhesives.

3)	BNS Used for Paper Coatings:

					Table IV

Max. Rate of Applications	Paper Coating Mass to Wt. of paper	Standard Basis of Paper	Food Mass: Surface Area of Treated Paper	Migration Consumption Factor

2 lbs/1000lbs product = 2000 ppm	10%	50 mg/in2 	10 g/in2	100%	10%

Dietary Conc of BNS for Paper coatings:

Appl. Rate x % Paper Coating x Basis of Wt. of Paper x Food Mass: Surface Area x % Migration:

a.i. µg/g  x 0.1 g coating/g paper x 0.05 g/in2 x  1 in2/10 g food

1 µg a.i. /g food; Since consumption factor is 10%:, actual dietary conc. of BNS in food is:

1.0  µg x 0.1 = 0. 1 µg of BNS/g food

Food in take for ad汵獴⠠䑆⁁獡畳灭楴湯
‽〳〰朠䘍潯湩慴敫映牯 愠挠楨摬⠠䑆⁁獡畳灭楴湯
‽㔱〰朠഍湉慴敫漠乂 ⽓慤⁹潦⁲湡愠畤瑬㴠〠ㄮ딠乂⽓潦摯砠㌠〰朰㴠 ㌠〰딠乂⽓摡汵⽴慤൹湉慴敫漠乂⽓慤⁹潦⁲档 汩‽⸰‱枵术映潯⁸㔱〰朠㴠ㄠ〵딠乂⽓档汩⽤ 慤൹

!

%

J

[

„

…

H

J

O

P

X

Y

n

o

{

|

Œ

Ž

…

J

K

X

Y

o

|

Ž

Å

Ó

Ù

Ú

î

ï

ù

ú

$Daily Dietary Dose: 300 µg/70 kg/day = 4.3 µg of BNS/kg/day for an adult

Dailey Dietary Dose: 150 µg/15 kg/day = 10 µg of BNS/kg/day for a child

					Table V

			Dietary Exposure from Paper Coatings

Daily Dietary Dose (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD ( a PAD) = 0.37 mg/kg/day)	% cPAD (cPAD = 0.037 mg/kg/day)

4.3 µ g/kg/day	 Adult: 4.3 =0.0043 mg/kg/day/0.37 x 100 = 1.16%

Child: 10/1000 = 0.001 mg/kg/day/ 0.37 x 100 = 0.27%	Adult: 0.0043 mg/kgday/0.037 mg x 100= 11.6%

Child: 0.001/0.037 x100 = 2.7%

					BIBLIOGRAPHY

FDA, 2003, A Guidance For Industry: Preparations of food Contact Notifications and Food Additive Petitions for Food Contact Substances, Chemistry Recommendations. Final Guidance, April 2003.   HYPERLINK "http://www.cfsan.fda.gov"  http://www.cfsan.fda.gov

FDA, 2003.  Sanitizing Solutions: Chemistry Guidance for Food Additive Petitions, January 2003.   HYPERLINK "Http://www.cfsan.fda.gov"  Http://www.cfsan.fda.gov

3.	AD’s End Points Selection Committee (An AD Memo by Tim McMahon to Jenny Tao, 2006


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 41711]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2283-000]

Black Bear Alabama Solar 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Black Bear Alabama Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 27, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14919 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P