[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29802-29804]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0366]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Emergency Bridge Replacement,
Chicago River, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily modifying the operating
schedule that governs the Chicago Avenue Bridge, mile 2.40, over the
North Branch of the Chicago River. This action is necessary because The
City of Chicago applied for and was awarded an emergency bridge
replacement permit to temporarily replace the Chicago Avenue double
leaf bascule bridge with a temporary fixed structure.

DATES: June 25, 2019 through 11:59 p.m. on November 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2019-0366 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because on July 16, 2018, we published PUBLIC
NOTICE 09-02-18 and mailed out an availability of public notice
addressed to 783 adjacent address and interested parties as part of the
bridge permit public notice and comment process. The comment process
was open until October 1, 2018. We did not receive any comments on this
rule.
    We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. PUBLIC NOTICE 09-02-
18 was made available for public comment and no comments were received
and the City of Chicago has already installed the temporary emergency
bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    The Chicago Avenue Bridge, mile 2.40, over the North Branch of the
Chicago River, provides a horizontal clearance of 148 feet and a
vertical clearance of 18 feet above LWD. The original bridge when
opened provided an unlimited clearance in the open position and the
same clearances in the closed position available with the temporary
fixed bridge. The City of Chicago applied for and was awarded an
emergency bridge replacement permit number 3-18-9 to temporarily
replace the Chicago Avenue double leaf bascule bridge with a temporary
fixed structure. In accordance with condition 8 of the permit the City
of Chicago must replace the fixed structure with a permanent movable
structure no later than November 14, 2023.
    The North Branch of the Chicago River is used by large commercial
tug and barge traffic, passenger vessels, powered and unpowered
recreational vessels. Currently all regular users of the waterway can
pass under the bridge without an opening.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule is to temporally relieve the City of Chicago from the
operational requirements of opening the Chicago Avenue Bridge until the
permanent bridge can be built.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge without openings and that the
public was engaged in this decision through the Coast Guard Bridge
Permit process and public notice procedures.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    Through the public notice sent out by mail, posted in the local
post office, and on the internet, the Coast Guard did not receive any
comments that this temporary regulation would have a significant
impact.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum
for the Record are not required for this rule. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) had been identified as the lead federal agency
for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FHWA
prepared a NEPA document for the project as proposed for the final
bridge permit. FHWA classified the project as a Categorical Exclusion.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.391 effective from date of publication, through 11:59
p.m. on November 13, 2023 temporarily add paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  117.391  Chicago River

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the Chicago Avenue Bridge, mile 2.40, over the
North Branch of the Chicago River, need not open for the passage of
vessels.

    Dated: June 13, 2019.
D.L. Cottrell,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-13495 Filed 6-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27527-27528]
[FR Doc No: E9-13544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR09-8-000]

Chevron Products Company, Complainant, v. SFPP, L.P., Respondent;
Notice of Complaint

June 3, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 29, 2009, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules
and Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, section 343.2 of the Procedural Rules
Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 385.343.2, sections
1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.
App. 1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 (1988), and section 1803 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Chevron Products Company (Complainant) filed a
formal complaint challenging the justness and reasonableness of the
index

rate increases placed into effect by the Respondent in its 2008 index
rate filing (in Docket IS08-302-000).
    The Complainant states that copies of the complaint were served on
the Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 18, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13544 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9535-9537]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0051; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-043-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders that are equipped with a Solo
2625 02 engine modified with a fuel injection system following the
instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische
Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 ``Fuel Injection System'') and identified as
Solo 2625 02i. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the
potential of an in-flight shut-down and engine fire due to failure of
the connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine
redundancy system on gliders equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine. We
are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany;
telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com. You may review
this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2017-
0051; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4165; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0051;
Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-043-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2014-0269, dated December 11, 2014 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported involving a failure of the connecting
stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine redundancy
system.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded
in-flight engine shut-down and engine fire, possibly resulting in
loss of control of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH issued
SB/TM 4600-5 to provide instructions for reinforcement and securing
of the injector mounts.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires modification of
the engine redundancy system.
    Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH SB/TM 4600-3 (currently at issue 2, dated
03 December 2012) will be revised to incorporate the modification
required by SB/TM 4600-5 for future Solo 2625 02i engines.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0051.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH has issued Technische Mitteilung (English
translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English
translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014. The service information
describes procedures for changing the fuel injector mounts of the
engine redundancy system and securing the connection of the lower to
the upper mount. 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
of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed 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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 3 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $67 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $456, or $152 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

DG Flugzeugbau GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2017-0051; Directorate
Identifier 2016-CE-043-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 24, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500MB gliders, all
serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine modified with a fuel
injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren
GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 ``Fuel
Injection System'') and identified as Solo 2625 02i; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the
connecting stud for the two fuel injector mounts of the engine
redundancy system on gliders equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine.
We are issuing this AD to prevent such failure that could lead to
the potential of an in-flight shut-down and engine fire and result
in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within the next 60 days after the effective
date of this AD, modify the engine redundancy system following the
actions in Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English
translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 2 (English
translation: Issue 2), dated December 12, 2014.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD: This service information
contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English
translation in referencing the document. For enforceability
purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information
as it appears on the document.

(g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD allows credit for modification of the engine redundancy
system as required in

paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the effective date of this
AD following Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English
translation: Service Bulletin), Nr. 4600-5, Ausgabe 1 (English
translation: Issue 1), dated November 24, 2014.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2014-0269, dated December 11, 2014 for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0051. For service
information related to this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH,
Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703
1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 18, 2017.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-01779 Filed 2-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76512-76513]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0966]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, New York City, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge across the
Harlem River, mile 7.9, New York City, New York. This deviation is
necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform a test of the submarine
cables at the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on December 9, 2016 to
7 a.m. on December 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0966] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Spuyten Duyvil Bridge, mile 7.9, across
the Harlem River, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 5
feet at mean high water and 9 feet at mean low water. The existing
bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.789(d).
    The waterway is transited by commercial vessels.
    The bridge owner, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to
perform a test of the submarine cables at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge shall
remain in the closed position from 10 p.m. on December 9, 2016 to 7
a.m. on December 11, 2016.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is an alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the

change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations
can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation. The Coast Guard notified known companies of the
commercial vessels, NYPD, and FDNY in the area and they have no
objections to the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 31, 2016.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-26531 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42291-42295]
[DOCID:fr26jy06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0556; FRL-8077-5]

2-Propenoic Acid, 2-Methyl-, Polymer with Ethenylbenzene, 2-
Ethylhexyl 2-Propenoate, 2-Hydroxyethyl 2-Propenoate, N-(Hydroxymethyl)
-2-Methyl-2-Propenamide and Methyl 2-Methyl-2-Propenoate, Ammonium
Salt; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2- methyl-, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-
propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt when used as an inert ingredient in
a pesticide chemical formulation. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA) requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-
propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 26, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 25, 2006,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0556. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic docket athttp://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bipin Gandhi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0556 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before September 25, 2006.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0556, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24693) (FRL-8066-
3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, as amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the
filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E7037) by E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company, Inc., 1007 Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid,
2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-
hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide
and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt; CAS Reg. No. 146753-
99-3. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner. There were no comments in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA
to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to
the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the

low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

IV. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness and
reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA
has also considered available information concerning the variability of
the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers,
including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical
substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a
set of criteria to identify categories of polymers that should present
minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR
723.250(b). The following exclusion criteria for identifying these low
risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
    1. The polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, is not a cationic polymer nor is it
reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural
aquatic environment.
    2. The polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, does contain as an integral part of its
composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.
    3. The polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, is manufactured or imported from monomers
and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical
Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5
exemption.
    6. The polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, is not a water absorbing polymer with a
number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000
daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-
propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt, also meets as required the
following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The number average molecular weight (MW) of polymer, 2-propenoic
acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-
propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-
propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt, is 29,296
which is greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains
less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5%
oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-
ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl)
-2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt
meet all the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40
CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the above criteria, no
mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal
exposure to 2-propenoicacid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-
ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl)
-2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium
salt.

V. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-
propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt could be present in all raw and
processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-
occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW
of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-
ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl)
-2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt
is 29296 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly
absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact
human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt conform to the criteria that identify a low
risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any
potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The
Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health.

VI. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether 2-
propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-
propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-
propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt has a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other
pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based
on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism
of toxicity finding as to 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt and any other substances and 2-propenoic
acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-
propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-
propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed
that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-
ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl)
-2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

VII. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and
Children

    Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and
the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the
expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate,
N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate, ammonium salt, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to
assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety
factor is unnecessary.

VIII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-
propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt.

IX. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    There is no available evidence that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,
polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl
2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide and methyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt is an endocrine disruptor.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for 2-
propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-
propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-
propenamide and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt nor have
any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food
crops at this time.

X. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid,
2-methyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate, 2-
hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate, N-(hydroxymethyl) -2-methyl-2-propenamide
and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ammonium salt from the requirement of
a tolerance will be safe.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance
requirement under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input

by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

XII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 10, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--AMENDED

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.960 is amended by adding alphabetically to the table a
polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
2-Propenoic Acid, 2-Methyl-, Polymer with   146753-99-3
 Ethenylbenzene, 2-Ethylhexyl 2-
 Propenoate, 2-Hydroxyethyl 2-Propenoate,
 N-(Hydroxymethyl) -2-Methyl-2-Propenamide
 and Methyl 2-Methyl-2-Propenoate,
 Ammonium Salt
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E6-11951 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: March 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 45)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12043-12045]
[DOCID:fr06mr08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936; FRL-8538-7]

Land Disposal Restrictions: Site-Specific Treatment Variance for
P- and U-Listed Hazardous Mixed Wastes Treated by Vacuum Thermal
Desorption at the EnergySolutions' Facility in Clive, Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
proposing to grant a site-specific treatment variance to
EnergySolutions LLC (EnergySolutions) in Clive, Utah, for the treatment
of certain P- and U-listed hazardous waste containing radioactive
contamination (``mixed waste'') using vacuum thermal desorption (VTD).
This variance is an alternative treatment standard to treatment by
combustion (CMBST) required for these wastes under EPA

rules implementing the land disposal restriction (LDR) provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Agency has
determined that combustion of the solid treatment residue generated
from the VTD unit is technically inappropriate due to the effective
performance of the VTD unit. Once the P- and U-listed mixed waste are
treated using VTD, the solid treatment residue can be land disposed
without further treatment. This proposed treatment variance is
conditioned upon EnergySolutions complying with a Waste Family
Demonstration Testing (WFDT) plan specifically addressing the treatment
of these P- and U-listed wastes, which is to be implemented through a
RCRA Part B permit modification for the VTD unit.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2007-0936, by one of the following methods: www.regulations.gov:
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936.
    Mail: RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936. Please include a total of 2 copies.
    Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. 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-RCRA-
2007-0936. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 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 hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ-Docket Center,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-
0270. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Juan Parra, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Elaine Eby, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The only regulated entity that will be affected by this proposed
rule is EnergySolutions located in Clive, Utah.

Why Is EPA Using a Proposed Rule?

    This document proposes to take action by granting a site-specific
treatment variance to EnergySolutions located in Clive, Utah. We also
have published a direct final rule identical to this proposal in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we
view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no significant
adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the
preamble to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no significant adverse comment, we will not take
further action on this proposed rule. If we do receive such adverse
comment, we will publish a timely notice in the Federal Register
informing the public that the final rule will be withdrawn due to
adverse comment. We will address all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For further information about
commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Direct Final Rule and Location of Regulatory Text for This Proposal

    The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the
direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of
this Federal Register. For further supplemental information, the
detailed rationale for the proposal, and the regulatory revisions, see
the information provided in the direct final rule published in the
Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal Register.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This site-specific treatment variance does not propose to create
any new requirements. Rather, it proposes an alternative treatment
standard for specific waste codes and applies to only one facility.
Therefore, we hereby certify that this rule will not add any new
regulatory requirements to small entities. This rule, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Mixed waste and
variances.

    Dated: February 28, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E8-4428 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


region facility species. orig stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes qc dummy dummy dummy dummy  999  999  999 dummy dummy river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa river joppa date species screens1 4 screens5 8 screens9 12 source 9/ 9/ 1974 gizzard. shad 8 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 9/ 1974 freshwater. drum 25 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 10/ 1974 gizzard. shad 168 264 182 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 10/ 1974 freshwater. drum 1120 1120 345 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 10/ 1974 channel. catfish 14 48 13 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 10/ 1974 white. bass 7 0 7 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 10/ 1974 sauger 1 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 gizzard. shad 117 1130 195 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 freshwater. drum 702 1356 150 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 channel. catfish 1 27 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 white. bass 1 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 river. herring 1 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 black. crappie 1 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 gizzard. shad 49 91 80 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 freshwater. drum 427 560 80 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 channel. catfish 0 3 2 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 white. bass 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 11/ 1974 white. crappie 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 gizzard. shad 151 663 1042 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 freshwater. drum 1032 2016 960 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 channel. catfish 21 5 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 white. bass 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 river. herring 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 mooneye 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 12/ 1974 yellow. bass 0 2 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 gizzard. shad 74 132 126 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 freshwater. drum 388 375 140 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 white. crappie 1 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 channel. catfish 7 2 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 flathead. catfish 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 brown. bullhead 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 yellow. bass 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 river. herring 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 gizzard. shad 102 454 581 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 freshwater. drum 201 1052 480 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 white. crappie 0 3 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 white. bass 0 1 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 13/ 1974 channel. catfish 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 14/ 1974 gizzard. shad 85 269 345 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 14/ 1974 freshwater. drum 190 138 105 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 14/ 1974 river. herring 1 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 14/ 1974 white. bass 1 2 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 14/ 1974 white. crappie 0 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 9/ 14/ 1974 river. herring 0 0 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 white. crappie 2 0 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 skipjack. herring 1 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 channel. catfish 2 2 3 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 gizzard. shad 18 5 12 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 freshwater. drum 8 6 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 yellow. bass 1 0 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 14/ 1974 white. bass 0 0 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 freshwater. drum 4 8 14 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 yellow. bass 2 3 2 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 bluecatfish 3 0 3 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 gizzard. shad 6 11 17 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 channel. catfish 1 0 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 yellow. bass 1 1 0 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 freshwater. drum 1 3 2 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 gizzard. shad 4 2 16 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 channel. catfish 0 2 2 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 15/ 1974 bluegill 0 0 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 yellow. bass 0 1 4 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 freshwater. drum 0 9 14 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 gizzard. shad 4 10 29 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 channel. catfish 1 3 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 skipjack. herring 0 1 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 channel. catfish 1 0 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 gizzard. shad 2 4 8 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 freshwater. drum 0 1 1 RM# 35964 Table B 2 10/ 16/ 1974 yellow. bass 0 0 2 RM# 35964 Table B 2 Losses data for the Joppa, Illinois Electric Generating Station ( Illinois). Cooling water source: Ohio River Intake 316( b) Phase III A. Gage, 12/ 2/ 2003 Notes: Need to evaluate if we can extrapolate I& E losses or not.


action failed to attain the 2008 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date; (2) identify those areas subject to reclassification as Severe
ozone nonattainment areas by operation of law upon the effective date
of the reclassification notice; and (3) adjust any applicable
implementation deadlines. Thus, the proposed action does not establish
any new information collection burden that has not already been
identified and approved in the EPA's information collection request.

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. The proposed
determinations of attainment and failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(and resulting reclassifications), and the proposed determination
either to grant or to deny a 1-year attainment date extension do not in
and of themselves create any new requirements beyond what is mandated
by the CAA. Instead, this rulemaking only makes factual determinations,
and does not directly regulate any entities.

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.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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. The
division of responsibility between the Federal government and the
states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the
CAA.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
    The EPA has identified tribal areas within the nonattainment areas
covered by this proposed rule, that would be potentially affected by
this rule. Specifically, two of the nonattainment areas addressed in
this proposal have tribes located within their boundaries: the Greater
Connecticut, CT, area (Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan
Indian Tribe), and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, CT-NJ-
NY area (Shinnecock Indian Nation). One of the nonattainment areas
addressed in this document is a separate tribal nonattainment area
(Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California area).
    The EPA has concluded that the proposed rule may have tribal
implications for these tribes for the purposes of Executive Order
13175, but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes,
nor would it preempt tribal law. As noted previously, a tribe that is
part of an area that is reclassified from Serious to Severe
nonattainment is not required to submit a TIP revision to address new
Severe area requirements. However, if the EPA finalizes the
determinations of failure to attain proposed in this action, the NNSR
major source threshold and offset requirements would change for
stationary sources seeking preconstruction permits in any nonattainment
areas newly reclassified as Severe (Section II.D.1 of this action),
including on tribal lands within these nonattainment areas. Areas that
are already classified Severe for a previous ozone NAAQS are already
subject to these higher offset ratios and lower thresholds, so a
reclassification to Severe for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would have no
effect on NNSR permitting requirements for tribal lands in those areas.
    The EPA has communicated or intends to communicate with the
potentially affected tribes located within the boundaries of the
nonattainment areas addressed in this proposal, including offering
government-to-government consultation, as appropriate.

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 it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or 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 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 that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income poulations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this determination is presented in Section II.B of
this action, ``Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date,'' and
summarized in Section III of this action, ``Environmental Justice
Considerations,'' and the relevant documents have been placed in the
public docket for this action.
    With respect to the determinations of whether areas have attained
the NAAQS by the attainment date, the EPA has no discretionary
authority to address EJ in these determinations. The CAA directs that
within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the
Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value as of
the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that
date. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). Except for any Severe or Extreme area,
any area that the Administrator finds has not attained the standard by
that date shall be reclassified by operation of law to either the next
higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's
design value. Id.

K. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' For
locally or regionally applicable final actions, the CAA reserves to the
EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the exception in (ii).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that this action, if finalized, is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator
intends to take into account a number of policy considerations,
including his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C.
Circuit's authoritative centralized review versus allowing
development of the issue in other contexts and the best use of
agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing findings regarding attainment of the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas within nine states located in six of the ten EPA
regions pursuant to a uniform process and standard. The EPA is also
proposing to establish SIP submission and implementation deadlines for
all newly reclassified areas in the identified states using a common,
nationwide method. The jurisdictions that would be affected by this
action, if finalized, represent a wide geographic area and fall within
several different judicial circuits.
    If the Administrator takes final action on this proposal, then, in
consideration of the effects of the action across the country, the EPA
views this action to be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of
CAA section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to the extent a court finds
this proposal, if finalized, to be locally or regionally applicable,
the Administrator intends to exercise the complete discretion afforded
to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is
based on a determination of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the
meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised CAA
section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323-24, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-07509 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P