[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56666]
[DOCID:fr28se05-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-412-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

September 16, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 6, 2005, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
Docket No. CP05-412-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the regulations of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, for an order authorizing Tennessee to add a net
44,850 horsepower of compression at one new and six existing compressor
stations located in Onondaga, Herkimer, Schoharie, Columbia, and
Steuben Counties, New York; Worcester County, Massachusetts; and Potter
County, Pennsylvania. The proposed facilities will provide an
additional 136,300 Dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to
Tennessee's New England Area market. Tennessee also requested that an
order be issued by August 1, 2006, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202) 502-
8659.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to, Jay V.
Allen, Senior Counsel, 1001 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, telephone:
(713) 420-5589.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the
comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to
intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link.
    Comment Date: October 6, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5207 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2800]
[DOCID:fr18ja11-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1263; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-17]

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-2 and V-21; Hawaii

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends two VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airway legal descriptions in the State of Hawaii. The FAA is taking
this action to remove exclusions to restricted airspace areas that have
been removed from the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, March 10, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace Regulation and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA Honolulu Control Facility conducted a review of the
facility airspace areas and found that two Federal Airways, V-2 and V-
21, contained exclusions to restricted airspace that was removed from
the NAS several years ago. Accordingly, since this is an administrative
change and does not involve a change in the boundaries, altitudes or
operating procedures of this airspace, notice and public procedure
under Title 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending two VOR Federal Airways, V-2 and V-21, located in
the State of Hawaii by removing all references to Restricted Area R-
3104A and R-3104B from the legal descriptions.
    Hawaiian VOR Federal Airways are listed in paragraph 6010(c) of FAA
Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Federal airways
listed in this document will be revised subsequently in the Order.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (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 the
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 amends two VOR Federal airways in Hawaii.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures.'' This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 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 FAA Order 7400.9U,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(c) Hawaiian VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-2 [Amend]

    From Honolulu, HI, via Lanai, HI; INT Lanai 106[deg] and Upolu
Point, HI, 305[deg] radials; Upolu Point (4 miles N and 3 miles S of
centerline); INT Upolu Point 093[deg] and Hilo, HI, 336[deg]
radials; Hilo.
* * * * *

V-21 [Amend]

    From Honolulu, HI, via INT Honolulu 182[deg] and Lanai, HI,
289[deg] radials; Lanai; INT Lanai 106[deg] and Hilo, HI, 033[deg]
radials; INT Upolu Point, HI, 093[deg] and Hilo 078[deg] radials; to
INT Hilo 078[deg] and long. 152[deg]14[min]00[sec] W.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 7, 2011.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace Regulation and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-823 Filed 1-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 1 LNG DEEPWATER PORT REVIEW PROCESS HCD COORDINATION WITH USCG AND APPLICANTS Pre Application ° Many applicants choose to meet with the relevant federal, state, and local agencies ( either individually or in interagency forums) during the pre application phase to discuss preliminary plans and issues ° Pre application meetings may occur days, weeks, or months prior to formal application submission to the U. S. Coast Guard ( USCG) ° Applicants may conduct separate pre application meetings to discuss the terminal and pipeline portions of a proposed project, particularly if new pipelines are being installed onshore and separate corporate entities have been established to handle each portion of the project ° During the pre application period, NOAA Fisheries will provide general recommendations on the selection of the least damaging alternatives for regasification systems, pipeline alignments, and other project features ° Applicants may request that information presented during pre application meetings be treated as confidential Completeness Review ° The Deepwater Port Act ( DPA) gives the USCG 21 days from receipt of a deepwater port license application to deem that application complete or incomplete ° The USCG will provide interested federal agencies ( including NOAA Fisheries) with copies of deepwater port license applications to assist in the completeness review ° Copies of the DPA license application are provided by the applicant directly to NOAA Fisheries headquarters, regional offices, and the appropriate field office( s) ° The USCG considers the 21 day completeness review clock to be started once the relevant agencies ( primarily NOAA, EPA, and MMS) have received the application for review ° The MOU between the USCG and DOC states that agencies will have a minimum of 5 days to assist in reviewing the application for completeness ° Completeness comments ( i. e., comments regarding the adequacy of information included in the application) developed by field office( s) are provided to the regional office for review as quickly as practicable and prior to deadlines imposed by NOAA for further upper level review and clearance ° HCD, PRD, and SFD comments should be coordinated in the region to the extent possible; any conflicting comments should be addressed prior to transmittal to F/ HC ° Comments are forwarded to F/ HC at least 4 days prior to the deadline established by the USCG for review, revision, and consolidation with other NOAA comments ( e. g., PRD, SFD, and the NOAA NOS), and will work with GCF to secure OGC and F clearance ° After final clearance, the comment letter containing NOAA's recommendations regarding application completeness is signed by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries ° Once received by the originating office, courtesy copies of completeness comments should be sent to GCF, regional and appropriate field offices, PRD headquarter and regional offices, HMS, NOS, EPA ( regional contacts), and MMS ( regional contacts) 2 ° After reviewing completeness comments submitted by the agencies, the USCG will either deem the application complete or incomplete ° If the application is deemed incomplete at the recommendation of NOAA Fisheries, the processing time frames are suspended and there may be varying degrees of correspondence between NOAA Fisheries, the USCG, and the applicant to determine the necessary steps to correct deficiencies in the application ° The USCG will deem the application complete when it determines those deficiencies have been corrected ° No time frame has been established by the USCG for application resubmittal or resolution of deficiencies ° The DPA gives the Secretary of Transportation 356 days from acceptance of a license application to either issue or deny a deepwater port license Information Request ( to HCD) ° For projects to date, the USCG has submitted a letter requesting information on affected species and habitat in the project area ° Unless otherwise stipulated in the request, NOAA Fisheries will respond within 30 days of receipt of the request ° The timing of this request has varied among projects, and has been submitted both before and after official scoping comments have been requested ° The HCD's response should include the categories and subcategories of EFH designated in the project area with the associated species and life stages of marine fishery species ° The response also should include the recommendation that the USCG contact other affected NOAA entities ( e. g., PRD, NOS, and National Marine Sanctuaries ( NMS)) for information regarding threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, marine mammals, coastal zone consistency, sanctuary issues, etc. ° The HCD's response to the information request will be provided directly to the USCG by the appropriate HCD office ° Courtesy copies of the response should be sent to the HCD regional and field offices, the PRD regional office, HMS, NMS ( if applicable), EPA ( regional contacts), and MMS ( regional contacts) 3 Scoping ° The USCG typically initiates scoping by sending a letter formally requesting NOAA Fisheries' comments on issues of concern regarding a proposed deepwater port project, accompanied by a scoping notice and/ or a Notice of Intent to prepare a NEPA document from the Federal Register ° The review and response time will be designated by the USCG in the scoping notice, and has ranged from 20 to 45 days ° NOAA Fisheries staff may attend public scoping meetings to obtain further information about the proposed project ° Scoping comments are developed from information contained in the license application, the Federal Register notice, and other information obtained from the USCG and/ or the applicant ° If the scoping notice indicates the USCG intends to prepare an EA rather than an EIS, and the project has potentially significant impacts ( e. g., a project proposing to utilize an open loop regasification system), the scoping comments should include a recommendation that an EIS be prepared ° Scoping comments developed in HCD field office( s) are provided to the regional office for review and determination of signatory authority a minimum of 2 days prior to comment deadline ° HCD, PRD, and SFD comments should be coordinated in the regional office to the extent possible; any conflicting comments should be addressed prior to submission to the USCG ° Courtesy copies of scoping comments should be sent to the Office of Strategic Planning, HCD regional and field offices, the regional NEPA coordinator, the PRD regional office, HMS, NMS ( if applicable), EPA ( regional contacts), and MMS ( regional contacts)

Interim Draft EIS ° Copies of the interim draft EIS are provided by the USCG to NOAA Fisheries headquarters and the appropriate regional and HCD field office( s) ° A response is typically requested within 5 days, though no formal time frame has been established ° If warranted, an Early Warning Report should be prepared for review and transmission by the ARA for Habitat Conservation to F/ HC ° Per § 1504.3( a)( 1) of the regulations implementing NEPA, NOAA Fisheries should advise the USCG as early as possible that it intends to refer the project to the Council on Environmental Quality ( CEQ) unless a satisfactory agreement is reached ° HCD, PRD, and SFD comments should be coordinated in the region to the extent possible; any conflicting comments should be addressed prior to submission to the USCG ° NOAA Fisheries submits comments on the interim draft EIS in the matrix provided by the USCG in both email and hard copy format ° Key issues of concern should be highlighted in the memo transmitting the comment matrix 4 ° If applicable, the transmittal memo should include a statement indicating NOAA Fisheries intends to refer the project to CEQ unless a satisfactory agreement is reached ° Courtesy copies of interim draft EIS comments should be sent to the regional HCD office, the regional NEPA coordinator, the PRD regional office, HMS, NMS ( if applicable), EPA ( regional contacts), MMS ( regional contacts), and constituents Draft EIS ° Copies of the DEIS are provided by the USCG to NOAA Fisheries headquarters and the appropriate regional and field office( s) ° The review and response time conforms to a standard NEPA DEIS review period ( i. e., 45 days) ° Any EFH Conservation Recommendations provided by NOAA Fisheries will be included with comments on the DEIS ° If NOAA Fisheries intends to refer the project to CEQ for higher review if concerns are not satisfactorily resolved, a statement to this effect should be included with the comments on the DEIS per § 1504.3( a)( 2) of the regulations implementing NEPA ° DEIS comments developed by HCD are provided to the ARA for Habitat Conservation a minimum of 5 days prior to comment deadline for review, revision, and transmission ° HCD, PRD, and SFD comments should be coordinated in the region to the extent possible; any conflicting comments should be addressed prior to submission to the USCG ° Courtesy copies of DEIS comments should be sent to the Office of Strategic Planning, HCD regional and field offices, the regional NEPA coordinator, the PRD regional office, HMS, NMS ( if applicable), EPA ( regional contacts), MMS ( regional contacts), the fishery management council, and constituents USCG Response to EFH Conservation Recommendations1 ° Consistent with Section 305( b)( 4)( B) of the Magnuson Stevens Act and NOAA Fisheries' implementing regulation at 50 CFR 600.920( k), the USCG is required to provide a written response to NOAA Fisheries' EFH conservation recommendations within 30 days of receipt ° If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30 days, the USCG will provide an interim response to NOAA Fisheries, to be followed by the detailed response, which should be provided at least 10 days prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision ( i. e., 10 day letter) ° If the USCG's response is inconsistent with NOAA Fisheries' EFH conservation recommendations, the USCG must provide a substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not implementing those recommendations 1Neither regional nor national EFH findings have been developed to facilitate EFH consultation and coordination with the USCG 5 ° Based on coordination with upper management, NOAA Fisheries will determine whether the justification is satisfactory, unsatisfactory but no further action by the USCG is necessary, or whether EFH and/ or CEQ referral is warranted ° NOAA Fisheries will submit a final reply to the USCG within 10 days of receipt of the USCG's 10 day letter ° Responses to the USCG's 10 day letter developed in the HCD field office( s) are provided to the ARA for Habitat Conservation for review, revision, and determination of signatory authority a minimum of 3 days prior to comment deadline ° If NOAA Fisheries' EFH conservation recommendations and other concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, NOAA Fisheries will respond as such and notify the USCG that EFH Consultation has been successfully concluded ° Courtesy copies of the response should be sent to the HCD regional and field offices, the regional NEPA coordinator, the PRD regional office, HMS, NMS ( if applicable), EPA ( regional contacts), MMS ( regional contacts), the fishery management council, and constituents Interim Final EIS ° Copies of the interim final EIS are provided by the USCG to NOAA Fisheries headquarters and the appropriate regional and field office( s) ° A response is typically requested within 5 days, though no formal time frame has been established ° HCD, PRD, and SFD comments should be coordinated within the region to the extent possible; any conflicting comments should be addressed prior to submission to the USCG ° NOAA Fisheries submits comments on the interim final EIS in the matrix provided by the USCG in both email and hard copy format ° Key issues of concern should be highlighted in the memo transmitting the comment matrix ° If concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed and the USCG has previously been advised of NOAA Fisheries' intent to refer the project, NOAA Fisheries should reiterate in the transmittal memo that it intends to refer the project to CEQ and/ or elevate under the Magnuson Stevens Act if there is a lack of resolution in the FEIS ° Courtesy copies of the interim FEIS comments should be sent to the HCD regional and field offices, the regional NEPA coordinator, the PRD regional office, HMS, NMS ( if applicable), EPA ( regional contacts), MMS ( regional contacts), the fishery management council, and constituents Final EIS ° Copies of the FEIS are provided by the USCG to NOAA Fisheries headquarters and the appropriate regional and field office( s) 6 ° HCD, PRD, and SFD comments should be coordinated in the region to the extent possible; any conflicting comments should be addressed prior to submission to the USCG ° If concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed and the USCG has previously been advised of NOAA Fisheries' intent to refer the project to CEQ, NOAA Fisheries will deliver the referral to CEQ no later than 25 days after the FEIS has been made available to the EPA, commenting agencies, and the public per § 1504.3( b) of the regulations implementing NEPA ° CEQ Referral Procedures are specified in 1504.3( c)( h) of the regulations implementing NEPA No procedures have been finalized to date for separately elevating actions under the Magnuson Stevens Act


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, May 19, 2020 7:59 PM
To:
Paul Balserak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Eric Stuart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: EAF NSPS

Yes, its nice NOT to be on reg agenda for awhile. This rule IS court-ordered and these are the dates; otherwise I would not really have an exact schedule. But it's too soon to get it on the agenda. Rule of thumb is one year from any FR activity, so I'm thinking next November 2020 is likely the time to get it on the agenda. I'm not sure why its not on the long-term list or even what the parameters are for getting on that list.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Paul Balserak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 7:19 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Eric Stuart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: EAF NSPS

Hi Dr. Jones,

Thank you so much for this note and for sending the NSPS files.  I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you.  I'm working with my members, and we'll review and consider what mark ups/edits we would like.  I looked for the reg agenda entry for this rulemaking and could not find it in either the regular fall reg agenda or the long term actions list.  I was hoping to see the expected schedule for both the proposed and final rules.  You obviously provided the proposed rule schedule below, so thank you.  This rule is not under a court deadline, is that correct?

Thanks again, appreciate your help.

Best,
Paul

Paul Balserak
Vice President, Environment

American Iron and Steel Institute
25 Massachusetts Ave.  NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC  20001
202 452-7122 (office)
703 969-1789 (mobile)

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 11:52 AM
To: Paul Balserak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Eric Stuart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: EAF NSPS

Hi Paul - Yes, certainly, you may get involved with the NSPS review. I sent the attached Word versions of the two NSPS to SMA awhile back for their markup and have not received any feedback yet, so you haven't missed anything.

Attached are two files for your members to use to mark up (redline please). You can add edits and/or comment bubbles on anything that your group would like to see changed. Please explain briefly in the document with a comment bubble why each edit is something your association members would like to see changed or deleted. You can provide additional and/or detailed comments in separate documents.

As fyi - I am doing the same exercise with the EPA Region V inspectors. I will review all of the comments and then proceed with any changes from there. I will let all groups review the others' suggested changes before going forward.

I am also reviewing test data on PM filterable obtained via 114 requests from EAF facilities from 2010 and 2016 to evaluate the current standard. Any additional more recent test data is welcome. We will be adding ERT data submittal as a requirement in the amended rule so future technology reviews will be easier.

As far as timeline, we have adequate time to evaluate the current rule before the November 2021 proposal deadline. I will likely start developing the proposed rule package and starting work group meetings around November 2020.

I am doing well here and hope you all are the same. We are all still working at home.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Paul Balserak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:15 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: EAF NSPS

Dear Dr. Jones,

AISI represents EAF steel producers that will be impacted by the forthcoming NSPS.  I would like to see if we could be able to engage on the EAF NSPS rulemaking effort along with the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA).  If you have any questions at all, please let me know.  I hope you are well and staying safe!

Best,
Paul

Paul Balserak
Vice President, Environment

American Iron and Steel Institute
25 Massachusetts Ave.  NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC  20001
202 452-7122 (office)
703 969-1789 (mobile)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4331-4333]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-1097]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Sellwood Bridge Move; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing of a temporary safety zone
around the Sellwood Bridge, located on the Willamette River in
Portland, Oregon, while it is being relocated 66 feet downriver as part
of the new Sellwood Bridge construction project. This action is
necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels transiting the
Willamette River in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge as it is being
moved. This safety zone will also allow full maneuverability for
construction operations in this area during the bridge movement
operation. The safety zone will be effective for two days, but will
only be enforced as long as is necessary to complete the bridge
movement.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 19, 2013 to
11:59 p.m. on January 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-1097]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 Ensign Ian P. McPhillips, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (503) 240-
9319, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because to do so would be impracticable as
the Coast Guard received a late notification of the event. The reason
for the late notification was that the date of the bridge move could be
set only after an exact date of the completion of the two structures
was established. Additionally, because of the complexity of moving the
bridge in one piece to new abutments and piers, the construction team
could not reschedule the move.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because to do otherwise would be
impracticable as the Coast Guard received a notification of the event
one month prior to it. The bridge construction contractor was
constrained by the completion of the temporary structures and the
availability of the subcontractor conducting the actual bridge move, so
the date of the move could not be established any earlier.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Sellwood Bridge Move is part of the Sellwood Bridge Project to
replace the existing 86-year-old bridge that is structurally inadequate
and functionally obsolete. The project includes moving the bridge 66
feet north and building two temporary structures. A safety zone is
needed to help ensure the safety of persons and vessels transiting the
area from any overhead hazards created during the bridge move.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that covers the waters of the
Willamette River, extending 100 feet upriver and 160 feet downriver of
the Sellwood Bridge and to the east and west shorelines. This safety
zone prohibits all vessel traffic for the duration of the bridge move
with the exception of emergency vessels. A passage through the safety
zone for commercial vessels may be requested with a four-hour advance
notice through the Captain of the Port by contacting the Sector
Columbia River Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or the Patrol
Commander on VHF Channel 23.
    This safety zone encompasses an existing safety zone along the east
and west shorelines of the Sellwood Bridge (See Sellwood Bridge
Project, Docket No. USCG-2012-0131), which was established for the
entire duration of the construction of the new bridge, expected to be
completed in July 2015. This safety zone will be effective on January
19 and 20, 2013. We note that upon the expiration of this safety zone,
the Sellwood Bridge Project safety zone will continue to remain in
place.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and

executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although the safety zone
would apply to the entire width of the river, the effect of this rule
will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone is limited in
size; (ii) traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the
permission of the Captain of the Port; (iii) all river users in the
area have been notified of the date and time of the temporary closure;
and (iv) before the activation of the zone, the Coast Guard will issue
maritime advisories widely available to users in the river.

2. 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. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire
width of the river, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: (i) The safety zone is limited in size; (ii) traffic would be
allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of
the Port; (iii) all known river users in the area have been notified of
the date and time of the temporary closure; and (iv) before enforcing
the zone, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely
available to users in the river.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety

zone around the Sellwood Bridge on the Willamette River in Portland,
OR. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-238 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13.238  Safety Zone; Sellwood Bridge Move; Willamette River,
Portland, OR.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Willamette River around the Sellwood bridge in Portland, OR bounded
by a line beginning at the west shoreline north of the Sellwood bridge
at 45[deg]27'54'' N, 122[deg]40'01'' W; thence to the east at
45[deg]27'54'' N, 122[deg]39'52'' W; thence to the east shoreline south
of the Sellwood bridge at 45[deg]27'52'' N, 122[deg]39'49'' W; thence
to the west at 45[deg]27'52'' N, 122[deg]40'01'' W; thence north along
the west shoreline to the point of origin.
    (b) Enforcement Periods. The Coast Guard Sector Columbia River
Captain of the Port will cause notice of the enforcement of this safety
zone to be made by all appropriate means to effect the widest publicity
among the affected segments of the public as practicable, in accordance
with 33 CFR 165.7. Such means of notification may include, but are not
limited to, Broadcast Notices to Mariners or Local Notices to Mariners.
The Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners notifying the public
when enforcement of the safety zone is suspended. Upon notice of
enforcement by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port, the Coast
Guard will enforce the safety zone in accordance with rules set out in
this section. Upon notice of suspension of enforcement by the Sector
Columbia River Captain of the Port, all persons and vessels are
authorized to enter, transit, and exit the safety zone, consistent with
the Navigation Rules.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representatives. To request transit through this zone
contact the Sector Columbia River Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
the Patrol Commander on VHF Channel 23.

    Dated: January 7, 2013.
B.C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2013-01139 Filed 1-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26782-26783]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0093]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request: Evaluation of the
Program for Enhanced Review Transparency and Communication for New
Molecular Entity New Drug Applications and Original Biologics License
Applications in Prescription Drug User Fee Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by June 7,
2013.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-New and
title Evaluation of the Program for Enhanced Review Transparency and
Communication for New Molecular Entity New Drug Applications and
Original Biologics License Applications in Prescription Drug User Fee
Act. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Evaluation of the Program for Enhanced Review Transparency and
Communication for New Molecular Entity New Drug Applications and
Original Biologics License Applications in Prescription Drug User Fee
Act--(OMB Control Number 0910-New)

    As part of its commitments in PDUFA V. FDA has established a new
review Program to promote greater transparency and increased
communication between the FDA review team and the applicant on the most
innovative products reviewed by the Agency. The Program applies to all
New Molecular Entities (NMEs), New Drug Applications (NDAs), and
original Biologics License Applications (BLAs) that are received from
October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2017. The Program is described
in detail in section II.B of the document entitled ``PDUFA
Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2013
through 2017'' (the ``Commitment Letter'') (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM270412.pdf.
    The goals of the Program are to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the first review cycle and decrease the number of
review cycles necessary for approval so that patients have timely
access to safe, effective, and high-quality new drugs and biologics. A
key aspect of the Program is an interim and final assessment that will
evaluate how well the parameters of the Program have achieved the
intended goals. The PDUFA V Commitment Letter specifies that the
assessments be conducted by an independent contractor and that they
include interviews of pharmaceutical manufacturers who submit NMEs,
NDAs, and original BLAs to the Program in PDUFA V. The contractor for
the assessments of the Program is Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG),
and the statement of work for the assessments is available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM304793.pdf.
    Therefore, in accordance with the PDUFA V Commitment Letter, FDA
proposes to have ERG conduct independent interviews of applicants after
FDA issues a first-cycle action for applications reviewed under the
Program. The purpose of these interviews is to collect feedback from
applicants on the success of the Program in increasing review
transparency and communication during the review process. ERG will
anonymize and aggregate sponsor responses prior to inclusion in the
assessments and any presentation materials at public meetings. FDA will
publish ERG's assessments (with interview results and findings) in the
Federal Register for public comment.
    In the Federal Register of February 19, 2013 (78 FR 11652), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA typically reviews approximately 40 to 45 NMEs, NDAs, and
original BLAs per year. ERG will interview one to three sponsor
representatives at a time for each application that receives a first-
cycle action from FDA up to 135 sponsor representatives per year. Thus,
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of                        Average
        Portion of study            Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                   respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretest........................               5               1               5             1.5              7.5
Interviews.....................             135               1             135             1.5            202.5
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............            210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    ERG will conduct a pretest of the interview protocol with five
respondents. FDA estimates that it will take 1.0 to 1.5 hours to
complete the pretest, for a total of a maximum of 7.5 hours. We
estimate that up to 135 respondents will take part in the post-action
interviews each year, with each interview lasting 1.0 to 1.5 hours, for
a total of a maximum of 202.5 hours. Thus, the total estimated annual
burden is 210 hours. FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience
with similar interviews with the regulated community.

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
Peter Lurie,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2013-10898 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P