[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11725-11728]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0128; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-133-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The
Boeing Company Model airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 800
series engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of in-flight
separation of the aft plug from the forward plug, which are the two
parts of the turbine exhaust plug assembly. This proposed AD would
require installation of a serviceable turbine exhaust plug assembly
(for certain airplanes), and a general visual inspection (for certain
airplanes) to determine the diameter of the bolt used at the forward
and aft plug interface, and applicable corrective actions. We are
proposing this AD to prevent separation of the forward plug from the
aft plug of the turbine exhaust plug assembly, which could result in
parts departing the airplane and hitting the empennage or hitting a
person on the ground, and destabilizing the airplane during a critical
flight phase; parts remaining on a runway could cause damage to another
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. 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; 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO) FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425)
917-6501; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0128;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-133-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://www.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

    We received reports of in-flight separation of the aft plug from
the forward plug, which are the two parts of the turbine exhaust plug
assembly. A subsequent investigation showed that some of the interface
bolts were found loose or missing. The turbine exhaust plug assembly
was sent for analysis and it was found that the remaining bolts had
less than the necessary minimum run-on torque value. It was also found
that the operator of the analyzed turbine exhaust plug assembly had
disassembled it a minimum of three times during maintenance actions.
Repeated assembly and disassembly causes the locking property of the
nut on the nutplate to wear out and subsequently let the bolts become
loose or removed in service. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in parts departing the airplane and hitting the empennage or
hitting a person on the ground, and destabilizing the airplane during a
critical flight phase; parts remaining on a runway could cause damage
to another airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051,
Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012. For information on the procedures
and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA 2014-0128.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require installation of a serviceable
turbine exhaust plug assembly (for certain airplanes), and a general
visual inspection (for certain airplanes) to determine the diameter of
the bolt used at the forward and aft plug interface, and applicable
corrective actions.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The applicability of the proposed AD and the effectivity of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3, dated
August 23, 2012, both include Model 777 airplanes equipped with Rolls-
Royce Trent 800 series engines. Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012, however, is
further limited to airplanes with line numbers before line position
470. Because we have determined that these engines are interchangeable
among the Model 777 airplane fleet, this proposed AD would apply to all
line positions of Model 777 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent
800 engines, and would prohibit installation of non-serviceable turbine
exhaust plug assemblies on any affected airplane.
    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3,
dated August 23, 2012, does not specify a compliance time for
accomplishing one of the corrective actions. In Table 2 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-
78-0051, Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012, the condition ``Only \1/4\
inch diameter bolts are found installed at all 33 locations forward and
aft plug interface'' has a corrective action to ``reidentify the
forward and aft plug'' with a compliance time of ``none.'' However, in
paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD, the compliance time is ``before
further flight'' for doing all applicable corrective actions, which
includes reidentifying the forward and aft plug.
    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3,
dated August 23, 2012, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation.......................  5 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $425         $14,875
                                      = $425.
General visual inspection..........  2 work-hours x $85 per hour               0             170           5,950
                                      = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (replacing the \3/16\ inch bolts    5 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $0            $425
 with \1/4\ inch bolts).                         $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed 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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0128; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-133-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 17, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes; certificated in any
category; equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 800 series engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
Exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight separation of the
aft plug from the forward plug, which are the two parts of the
turbine exhaust plug assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent
separation of the forward plug from the aft plug of the turbine
exhaust plug assembly, which could result in parts departing the
airplane and hitting the empennage or hitting a person on the
ground, and destabilizing the airplane during a critical flight
phase; parts remaining on a runway could cause damage to another
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation and General Visual Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0051, Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012, except as provided by
paragraph (i) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012.
    (1) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3,
dated August 23, 2012: Install a serviceable turbine exhaust plug
assembly.
    (2) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configurations 2 and 3,
in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision
3, dated August 23, 2012: Do a general visual inspection to
determine the diameter of the bolt used at the forward and aft plug
interface, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective
actions.
    (3) For airplanes listed in paragraph (c) of this AD that are
not listed in the ``Effectivity'' section of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3, dated August 23,
2012: Do a general visual inspection to determine if a serviceable
turbine exhaust plug assembly is installed. If a serviceable turbine
exhaust plug assembly is not installed, before further flight,
install a serviceable turbine exhaust plug assembly.

(h) Definition of Serviceable Assembly

    For purposes of this AD, an acceptable serviceable turbine
exhaust plug assembly must meet the conditions specified in
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) A new assembly with part number 314W5520-22.
    (2) A serviceable assembly as defined in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0051, Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012; except, for any assembly on
which the actions specified in Part 2 or Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3, dated August 23, 2012, are done,
and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision
3, dated August 23, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, this AD requires repair before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.

(i) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0051, Revision 3, dated August 23,
2012, specifies a compliance time ``after the Revision 3 date of
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
applicable time after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, only a serviceable turbine
exhaust plug assembly may be installed on any airplane.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 24, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04568 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36362-36363]
[DOCID:fr26jn08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58001]

Order Granting Temporary Exemption of Realpoint LLC From the
Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Rule 17a-5(c)(1) Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

June 23, 2008.

I. Introduction

    The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 (``Rating Agency
Act''),\1\ enacted on September 29, 2006, defined the term ``nationally
recognized statistical rating organization'' (``NRSRO''), added Section
15E to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and
provided authority for the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') to implement registration, recordkeeping, financial
reporting, and oversight rules with respect to registered credit rating
agencies. Exchange Act Rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 240.17g-1), and Form NRSRO
(17 CFR 249b.300), prescribe the process for a credit rating agency to
apply for registration. Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO were effective on
June 18, 2007, and the other rules, Rules 17g-2 through 17g-6 (17 CFR
240.17g-2 through 17g-6), became effective on June 26, 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. No. 109-291 (2006).
    \2\ Release No. 34-55857 (June 5, 2007), 72 FR 33564, 33564-65
(June 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Rule 17g-5(c)(1) prohibits an NRSRO from issuing or
maintaining a credit rating solicited by a person that, in the most
recently ended fiscal year, provided the NRSRO with net revenue
equaling or exceeding 10% of the total net revenue of the NRSRO for the
fiscal year. In adopting this rule, the Commission stated that such a
person would be in a position to exercise substantial influence on the
NRSRO, which in turn would make it difficult for the NRSRO to remain
impartial.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 33598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Application and Exemption Request of Realpoint LLC

    Realpoint LLC (``Realpoint''), a credit rating agency, furnished to
the Commission an application for registration as an NRSRO under
Section 15E of the Exchange Act for the class of credit ratings
described in clause (iv) of Section 3(a)(62)(B) of the Exchange Act.\4\
Based on the information provided in the application, Realpoint has a
conflict of interest that would cause the firm to be in violation of
Rule 17g-5(c)(1) if Realpoint became registered. Specifically, for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, Realpoint maintained credit
ratings solicited by a person that provided Realpoint with 10% or more
of its total net revenue for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This class of credit ratings is for ``issuers of asset-
backed securities (as that term is defined in section 1101(c) of
part 229 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations * * * '')
(``asset-backed securities''). Section 3(a)(62)(B)(iv) of the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Realpoint has requested \5\ that the Commission exempt it from Rule
17g-5(c)(1) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 on the grounds
that the prohibition hinders its ability as a small entity to further
develop its business issuing credit ratings on asset-backed securities.
Realpoint also stated that it expects the percentage of net revenue
attributable to the relevant client to decrease to approximately 7.5%
of its fiscal year 2008 net revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter dated April 28, 2008 to the Commission from Robert
Dobilas, CEO and President of Realpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission, when adopting Rule 17g-5(c)(1), noted that it
intended to monitor how the prohibition operates in practice,
particularly with respect to asset-backed securities, and whether
exemptions may be appropriate.\6\ The Commission notes that the revenue
in question was earned by Realpoint before it submitted its application
for registration and in the year before Rule 17g-5 was adopted, which
limited the time for Realpoint to adjust its activities to conform to
the requirements of the rule. In addition, the Commission recognizes
that, given Realpoint's size, it is more likely that the firm would be
affected by Rule 17g-5(c)(1) than a larger credit rating agency with a
more diversified client base. Further, the Commission notes that
Realpoint has stated that it expects that the percentage of total net
revenue provided by the client will be below 10% for fiscal year 2008.
Finally, the Commission notes that the threshold in Rule 17g-5(c)(1)
is, of necessity, a bright line, but activities that exceed that
threshold may or may not necessarily raise the concerns that are the
basis for the rule. Hence, the Commission believes that it is important
for the Commission to consider for each application the specific facts
and circumstances of the applicant and whether to grant an exemption
from Rule 17g-5(c)(1). Moreover, in this instance, the Commission
recognizes that granting this exemption furthers the primary purpose of
the Rating Agency Act, which is to enhance competition in the highly
concentrated ratings industry. Granting Realpoint's registration will
increase the number of NRSROs registered in the asset-backed security
class, which could increase competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Release No. 34-55857 (June 5, 2007), 72 FR 33564, 33598
(June 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission finds that granting Realpoint an
exemption from Rule 17g-5(c)(1) for calendar year 2008 is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the
protection of investors.\7\ The exemption will expire on January 1,
2009 (Realpoint's fiscal year ends on December 31, 2008). The
Commission believes that providing Realpoint with the opportunity to be
registered as an NRSRO during this time frame is an appropriate
approach to addressing the unique circumstances of a small credit
rating agency, while balancing this against the goal of Rule 17g-
5(c)(1)--to prohibit a conflict that has the potential to influence a
credit rating agency's impartiality. Consequently, this exemption is

conditioned on Realpoint disclosing in Exhibit 6 to Form NRSRO that the
firm received more than 10% of its net revenue in fiscal year 2007 from
a client that paid it for a credit rating. This disclosure is designed
to alert users of credit ratings to the existence of this specific
conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, by
rule, regulation, or order, to conditionally or unconditionally
exempt any person from any rule under the Exchange Act, to the
extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and is consistent with the protection of investors. 15
U.S.C. 78mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Simultaneously with this Order, the Commission is issuing an Order
granting the registration of Realpoint with the Commission as an NRSRO
under Section 15E of the Exchange Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Release No. 34-58000 (June 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
    it is hereby ordered that Realpoint LLC is exempt from the conflict
of interest prohibition in Exchange Act Rule 17g-5(c)(1) until January
1, 2009, provided that Realpoint LLC discloses in Exhibit 6 to Form
NRSRO that the firm received more than 10% of its net revenue in fiscal
year 2007 from a client that paid it for a credit rating.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-14530 Filed 6-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17887-17888]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0163; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-2]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Indianapolis, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Indianapolis, IN.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using new RNA V Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Hendricks County--Gordon Graham Field,
Indianapolis, IN. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Hendricks
County--Gordon Graham Field, Indianapolis, IN.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC June 5, 2008. Comments for inclusion
in the rules Docket must be received May 19, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room WI2-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2008-0163/Airspace Docket No. 08-
AGL-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Yadouga, Central Service center,
System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of
intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date of
the rule. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or
negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a
document, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be
published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking
may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual
basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly
helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the direct final
rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of
the direct final rule. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of their comments on this rule must submit with those comments
a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is
made: ``Comments to Docket No. FA-2008-0163, Airspace docket No. 08-
AGL-2.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be
submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this
rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71, amends Class E airspace at Indianapolis, IN, by providing
additional controlled airspace to support the new RVAN

(GPS) RWY 18 approach developed for IFR landings at Hendricks County--
Gordon Graham Field, Indianapolis, IN. Controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface is required to encompass all
SIAPs and for the safety of IFR operations at Hendricks County--Gordon
Graham Field. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface of the earth are published in the FAA
Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. Class E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implication
under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation; it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49, of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, Part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it provides additional controlled airspace for Hendricks County--
Gordon Graham Field, Indianapolis, IN.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 17 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  Amended

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designation and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E5 airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL IN E5 INDIANAPOLIS, IN [Amended]

Indianapolis International Airport, IN
    (Lat 39[deg]43'02'' N, long 86[deg]17'40'' W)
Indianapolis Greenwood Municipal Airport, IN
    (Lat 39[deg]37'42'' N, long 86[deg]05'16'' W)
Indianapolis, Eagle Creek Airpark, IN
    (Lat 39[deg]49'51'' N, long 86[deg]17'40'' W)
Indianapolis Downtown Heliport
    (Lat 39[deg]45'57'' N, long 86[deg]08'56'' W)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat 39[deg]42'12'' N, long 86[deg]06'28'' W)
     Brickyard VORTAC
    (Lat 39[deg]48'53'' N, long 86[deg]22'03'' W)
Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Field
    (Lat 39[deg]44'48'' N, long 86[deg]26'31'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.9 mile radius on the Indianapolis International Airport;
and within a 7 mile radius of the Greenwood Municipal Airport; and
within a 6.3 mile radius of Eagle Creek Airpark, and within 2.6
miles each side of the Brickyard VORTAC 257[deg] radial, extending
from the 6.3 mile radius of the Eagle Creek Airpark and the 7.9 mile
radius of the Indianapolis International Airport to 7 miles west of
the VORTAC; and within a 6 mile radius of the Point in Space
coordinates (Lat 39[deg]42'12'' N, long 86[deg]06'28'' W), serving
Indianapolis Downtown Heliport; and within a 6.4 mile radius of
Hendricks County--Gordon Graham Field Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 20, 2008.
Ronnie L. Uhlenhaker,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
 [FR Doc. E8-6572 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 42022]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15377]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Breitling Energy Corporation; Order of
Suspension of Trading

June 24, 2016.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') that
there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the
securities of Breitling Energy Corporation (``BECC'') (CIK No.
0001229089) because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions
by BECC, a Nevada corporation whose principal place of business is
listed as Dallas, and by others, in public reports filed with the SEC
and press releases concerning, among other things: (1) The company's
assets; (2) the company's business transactions; and (3) the company's
current financial condition. BECC's common stock is quoted on OTC Link
operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the ticker symbol BECC.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on
June 24, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 8, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15377 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79067]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1130]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow community celebration of New
Year's Eve. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position during a portion of the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. on December
31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1130 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1130 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower
Drawbridge, mile 59.0, Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower
Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other
times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is
given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 9 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. on December 31, 2011 to allow community
celebration of New Year's Eve. This temporary deviation has been
coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat
cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period.
No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 7, 2011.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-32643 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 2004 TO: Effluent Guidelines Planning Record FROM: M. Ahmar Siddiqui RE: Summary of discussions with permit writers about PBST facilities As part of the detailed study examining the Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ( PBST) industry, discussions are taking place with permit writers and compliance authorities from across the US. In addition, permits from " heavy hitter" facilities, as identified by the TRI and PCS databases are being studied.

The following permit writers and compliance officials have spoken with EPA as part of this effort:

° Jim Ball and Eric Beck, Rhode Island Department of the Environment, Providence, RI; ° George Papadopoulos, EPA Region 1, Boston, MA; ° Dave Basinger, EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA; ° Lila Tang, California State Water Control Board ( CSWCB), San Francisco, CA; and ° Phil Isorena, CSWCB, Sacramento, CA.

These individuals have been selected for one of several reasons, as follows:

° " Heavy hitter" facilities are in their jurisdiction ° Permit controls are ambitious in their jurisdiction ° Identification of expertise by stakeholders Conversations with all those contacted have used a standard phone script as a guide, a copy of which is attached to this memorandum.

Not surprisingly, given the simplicity of the operations of the industry, observations by control authorities tend to be fairly homogeneous. Contaminated stormwater, tank bottoms water, and equipment wash water are identified as the main sources of toxic pollutant discharges. Dave Basinger, of EPA Region 9' s Compliance Office, also notes that ballast water is a significant source of wastewater, by volume, at those PBSTs that are close to bodies of water. Basinger also speculates that, at very active PBSTs with high product turnover, tank bottoms water can be the largest source of wastewater. In this case, the tank bottoms will be composed of water that was in the product to begin with. Such PBSTs would have unusually toxic and voluminous tank bottoms wastestreams.

In the northeastern United States, where PBSTs tend to be rather old, a significant problem seems to be groundwater contamination. In cases where tanks rest directly on the ground, pollutants can spill onto the ground or actually leach out of the tanks and into the ground. Jim Ball, of Rhode Island, and George Papadopoulos, of EPA Region 1, note that this has been observed to allow the introduction of oxygenates, like MTBE, into groundwater.

Since PBSTs handle petroleum products, it is not surprising that petroleum hydrocarbons and additives are identified as the main pollutants discharged. Oil and grease, BTEX, PACs, diesel and gasoline constituents, oxygenates, and TSS are widely monitored for in permits. Unfortunately, no control authority spoken with could identify any specific PAC as a particular source of trouble. Interestingly, George Papadopoulos, of EPA Region 1, notes that current methods are having difficulty isolating PACs in wastewater samples in the Northeast. The Region 1 office is in the process of collecting analytical laboratory reports and, absent any further guidance, will consider using TPH as an indicator. PACs are of special interest to EPA due to their high toxic weights. The reason most commonly given for the inability to target any particular PACs is that PBSTs handle a wide variety of products, with each having its own unique components.

In response to a question about API's contention that in excess of 50 percent of PBSTs closely associated with an oil refinery send their tank bottoms water to the refineries, several control authorities ( Lila Tang and Phil Isorena, of the California State Water Control Board, Eric Beck, of Rhode Island, and Basinger) were able to verify the existence of the practice, though none was able to identify its prevalence. All noted that a PBST doing this would be paying the refinery for treatment ( in this case, the refinery would be operating as a centralized waste treatment facility). None are able to comment about API's contention that tank bottoms water is used as feedstock to distillation columns for oil recovery operations.

On the question of treatment in place, to a great extent it depends on the size of the facility. It seems that very small facilities are fairly likely to have their wastewater shipped off site, with larger facilities using, at a minimum, oil/ water separation. Those in the Northeast and California have noted the increasing use of activated carbon beds a as polishing step before discharge. Beck notes that, in Rhode Island, this is because an internal consensus has been reached that, at this time, the use of activated carbon is now an appropriate technology basis for effluent limitations. Groundwater contamination should not be considered a driver, in this case, because, after all, effluent limits don't impact groundwater profiles.

In California, extremely tight discharge limits at PBSTs ( and other industrial sites, for that matter) are largely the result of the 1988 State Water Control Board Resolution declaring that all California surface waters are to be considered suitable or potentially suitable drinking water supplies ( Resolution No. 88 63, Adoption of Policy Entitled " Sources of Drinking Water"). Isorena states that limits for BTEX, MTBE, and many other constituents are often set below 10 ppb. Basinger states that biological treatment is not widely used at PBSTs because the widely varying stored products lead to widely varying wastestream pollutant profiles, a potentially damaging situation for the microorganism typically used in these types of systems. Basinger also notes that, where multiple tank farms are part of a very large oil refinery site and are widely spread out, each PBST is likely to have its own treatment system ( rather than a combined system).

Pollution prevention is become more widely used at PBSTs, if for no other reason than in response to EPA spill control rules. Along with the construction of dikes around tank areas to control the flow around tanks of contaminated stormwater and, in catastrohic cases, product itself, the use of BMPs is now becoming more common. Isorena states that facilities no longer drain tank bottoms water directly to the ground. Basinger notes that spills from the barges and trucks handling the products are now handled in a much improved manner and that facilities are now becoming more vigilant about accepting out of spec materials. In the event that an out ofspec material is received, PBSTs will now send the product back to the producing refinery.

All agree that, along with SPCC, EPA's stormwater rules have lowered the discharges of toxic pollutants from PBSTs, through segregation and better waste management. However, none was able to quantify this assertion to any great extent.

Permitting these facilities is mostly done on a per facility basis. Texas has a general permit, which is used as the basis for all permits in that state, but other states have no such guide to ease permit development. Rhode Island notes that permit development is no great burden as there are only seven PBSTs ( according to Beck) in the state, while Tang notes that, in the San Francisco Bay area of California, virtually all PBSTs have become indirect dischargers, with the relevant POTWs issuing the permits.

Finally, all had great difficulty addressing the issue of the prevalence of zero discharge in this industry. Beck speculated that small facilities are the most likely to be zero discharge, with it being likely that such facilities are unable to afford the operation of a treatment system. However, in the case of the Exxon East Providence Terminal, he notes, since it is associated with an Exxon refinery, it sends its wastewater through the refinery's groundwater treatment system. Possible Questions for Permit Writers regarding PBSTs 9. What are the wastewater sources at the permitted facilities? Which wastestreams contribute the majority of the pollutants discharged? In what quantities/ volumes are they discharged ( address all pollutants, including those that are toxic)? Do any of the permitted facilities discharge their tank bottoms waters? If possible, can individual PACs be identified? Also, at least one state ( Arkansas) regulates ammonia discharges from PBSTs. Is ammonia found in wastewaters and, if so, where does it come from and in what quantities?

10. API indicated in the March 8th meeting that many facilities send their tank bottoms water, at a minimum, to petroleum refiners for use as feedstock. How widespread is this practice and is it limited to zero dischargers?

11. Are there any particular types of facilities that have unusually large pollutant discharges, i. e. are particular product/ operation mixes responsible for toxic loads?

12. What is the current level of treatment in place? Is it pretty much limited to oil/ water separation or does anyone use any more advanced treatment? Do any facilities discharge wastewater without treatment? For those that use advanced treatment, why? Do they have particular issues? And do they use advanced treatment to treat only specific portions of their wastewaters, e. g. tank bottoms?

13. Are pollution prevention/ recovery practices in wide use? If so, what/ how? Are these consequences of, among other things, EPA's spill control rules ( SPCC)? Or have facilities been using them for other reasons, e. g. economic?

14. Are discharges impacted by other EPA rules? SPCC may have been addressed in the previous question, but what about air rules, water quality standards, stormwater rules, etc.? And specifically, how are toxic discharges affected?

15. Are there any difficulties in developing permits for these facilities? If so, why? Are all permits site specific or are there general criteria used to develop all permits for PBSTs in a state ( addressed to a state permit writer)?

16. TRI data imply that nearly two thirds of PBSTs are zero discharge. Is this actually reflective of the industry?

17. For those that are zero discharge, why are they zero discharge and how are they handling their wastewaters? Are they shipping the wastes offsite for treatment? Or do they simply not have much wastewater to begin with? If wastewater generation is low, why?

18. What are the percentages of the zero discharge facilities sending their wastes offsite?


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33853-33855]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14985]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0366; FRL-9994-98-Region 9]

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the
approval of a local rule and the update of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) Air Regulations proposed in the Federal Register on June 21,
2018. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of
states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain
consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area
(COA), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (``the
Act''). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated
pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which the Santa
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (``Santa Barbara County
APCD'' or ``the District'') is the designated COA. The intended effect
of approving the local rule and updating the OCS requirements for the
Santa Barbara County APCD is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in
accordance with the requirements onshore. The change to the existing
requirements discussed in this document will be incorporated by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and listed in the
appendix to the OCS air regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 15, 2019. The incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of August 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0366
for this action. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Air Division (Air-
4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' refer to the EPA.
    Organization of this document: The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 21, 2018 (83 FR 28795), the EPA proposed to approve Santa
Barbara County APCD Rule 360--Boilers, Water Heaters, and Process
Heaters (0.075-2 MMBtu/hr.) (Revised 03/15/18) into the Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS
Sources. The requirements are incorporated into the OCS Air Regulations
at 40 CFR part 55. As required under 40 CFR 55.1 and 55.12(d)(2), we
evaluated Rule 360 to ensure that it is rationally related to the
attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality
standards or part C of title I of the Act, that it is not designed
expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that it
is applicable to OCS sources. We also evaluated the rule to ensure that
it is not arbitrary or capricious, as required under 40 CFR 55.12(e).
    As explained in our proposal, section 328(a) of the Act requires
that the EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS
sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are
the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory
mandate, the EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55
as they exist onshore. This limits the EPA's flexibility in deciding
which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents the
EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it
incorporates. As a result, the EPA may be incorporating rules into part
55 that do not conform to all of the EPA's state implementation plan
(SIP) guidance documents or certain requirements of the Act.
Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules
or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately
be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS
rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for
SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by the
EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments on the proposed action.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section

328(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7627, the EPA is taking final action to
approve Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 360--Boilers, Water Heaters, and
Process Heaters (0.075-2 MMBtu/hr.) (Revised 03/15/18) for inclusion in
the compilation of Santa Barbara County APCD requirements applicable to
OCS sources.
    Also, the EPA is taking final action to update the incorporation by
reference of the compilation of EPA approved OCS source provisions for
the Santa Barbara County APCD. The ``Santa Barbara County APCD
Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,'' dated April 2019, replaces
the compilation previously incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 for the
Santa Barbara County APCD. See 82 FR 43491, September 18, 2017.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
``Santa Barbara County APCD Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,''
dated April 2019, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 55 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this
documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to establish
requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within
25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air
control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA
must incorporate applicable onshore rules into Part 55 as they exist
onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS
consistency updates, the EPA's role is to maintain consistency between
OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action simply
updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with
requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy discretion by
the EPA. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because 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, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
tribal law.
    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 55 and, by extension,
this update to the rules, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0249. OMB approved EPA Information Collection Request No. 1601.08 on
September 18, 2017. The current approval expires September 30, 2020.
The total burden for collection of information under 40 CFR part 55 is
estimated to be 27,018 hours per year, using the definition of burden
provided in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 82 FR 21811, 21812 (May 10, 2017).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer
Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and
Recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: May 29, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    40 CFR part 55 is amended as follows:

PART 55--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AIR REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 55 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) as amended by Public Law 101-549.

0
2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(F) to read
as follows:

Sec.  55.14  Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25
miles of states seaward boundaries, by State.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, April 2019.
* * * * *

0
3. Appendix A to part 55 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) under
the heading ``California'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 55--Listing of State and Local Requirements
Incorporated by Reference into Part 55, by State

* * * * *

California

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The following requirements are contained in Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS
Sources, April 2019:

Rule 102 Definitions (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 103 Severability (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 105 Applicability (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 107 Emergencies (Adopted 04/19/01)
Rule 201 Permits Required (Revised 06/19/08)
Rule 202 Exemptions to Rule 201 (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 203 Transfer (Revised 04/17/97)
Rule 204 Applications (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 205 Standards for Granting Permits (Revised 04/17/97)
Rule 206 Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to
Operate (Revised 10/15/91)
Rule 207 Denial of Application (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 210 Fees (Revised 03/17/05)
Rule 212 Emission Statements (Adopted 10/20/92)
Rule 301 Circumvention (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 302 Visible Emissions (Revised 6/1981)
Rule 303 Nuisance (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 304 Particulate Matter-Northern Zone (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 305 Particulate Matter Concentration-Southern Zone (Adopted 10/
23/78)
Rule 306 Dust and Fumes-Northern Zone (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 307 Particulate Matter Emission Weight Rate-Southern Zone
(Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 308 Incinerator Burning (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 309 Specific Contaminants (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 310 Odorous Organic Sulfides (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 311 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 312 Open Fires (Adopted 10/02/90)
Rule 316 Storage and Transfer of Gasoline (Revised 01/15/09)
Rule 317 Organic Solvents (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 318 Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems-Southern Zone (Adopted
10/23/78)
Rule 321 Solvent Cleaning Operations (Revised 06/21/12)
Rule 322 Metal Surface Coating Thinner and Reducer (Adopted 10/23/
78)
Rule 323 Architectural Coatings (Revised 11/15/01)
Rule 323.1 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 06/19/14, Effective 01/
01/15)
Rule 324 Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 325 Crude Oil Production and Separation (Revised 07/19/01)
Rule 326 Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Revised 01/
18/01)
Rule 327 Organic Liquid Cargo Tank Vessel Loading (Revised 12/16/85)
Rule 328 Continuous Emission Monitoring (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 330 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Revised 06/21/
12)
Rule 331 Fugitive Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (Revised 12/
10/91)
Rule 332 Petroleum Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater
Separators and Process Turnarounds (Adopted 06/11/79)
Rule 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (Adopted 06/19/08)
Rule 342 Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) from Boilers, Steam
Generators and Process Heaters) (Revised 04/17/97)
Rule 343 Petroleum Storage Tank Degassing (Adopted 12/14/93)
Rule 344 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, and Well Cellars (Adopted 11/10/94)
Rule 346 Loading of Organic Liquid Cargo Vessels (Revised 01/18/01)
Rule 349 Polyester Resin Operations (Revised 06/21/12)
Rule 352 Natural Gas-Fired Fan-Type Central Furnaces and Residential
Water Heaters (Revised 10/20/11)
Rule 353 Adhesives and Sealants (Revised 06/21/12)
Rule 359 Flares and Thermal Oxidizers (Adopted 06/28/94)
Rule 360 Boilers, Water Heaters, and Process Heaters (0.075-2 MMBtu/
hr.) (Revised 03/15/18)
Rule 361 Small Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters
(Adopted 01/17/08)
Rule 370 Potential to Emit--Limitations for Part 70 Sources (Revised
01/20/11)
Rule 505 Breakdown Conditions Sections A., B.1, and D. only (Adopted
10/23/78)
Rule 603 Emergency Episode Plans (Adopted 06/15/81)
Rule 702 General Conformity (Adopted 10/20/94)
Rule 801 New Source Review--Definitions and General Requirements
(Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 802 New Source Review (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 804 Emission Offsets (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 805 Air Quality Impact Analysis, Modeling, Monitoring, and Air
Quality Increment Consumption (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 806 Emission Reduction Credits (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 808 New Source Review for Major Sources of Hazardous Air
Pollutants (Adopted 05/20/99)
Rule 809 Federal Minor Source New Source Review (Revised 08/25/16)
Rule 810 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
(Revised 06/20/13)
Rule 1301 Part 70 Operating Permits--General Information (Revised
08/25/16)
Rule 1302 Part 70 Operating Permits--Permit Application (Adopted 11/
09/93)
Rule 1303 Part 70 Operating Permits--Permits (Revised 01/18/01)
Rule 1304 Part 70 Operating Permits--Issuance, Renewal, Modification
and Reopening (Revised 01/18/01)
Rule 1305 Part 70 Operating Permits--Enforcement (Adopted 11/09/93)
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-14985 Filed 7-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5791]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 2012 Winter Committee
Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission
staff may attend the following meetings:

FERC/National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC),
Collaboratives on Smart Response and Emerging Issues, February 5, 2012
(8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.), Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 Ninth Street
NW., Washington, DC 20001.
FERC/NARUC Forum on Reliability and the Environment, February 7, 2012
(2:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.), Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 Ninth Street
NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Further information may be found at http://winter.narucmeetings.org/program.cfm.
    The discussions at these meetings, which are open to the public,
may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. EL11-62-000, Public Service Commission of South Carolina and
the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff
Docket No. AD12-1-000, Commission Role Regarding Environmental
Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

    Dated: January 31, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2573 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P