51882 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ CA 211   0102b; FRL   6161   9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Bay Area Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the California State Implementation Plan ( SIP) which concerns the general provisions and definitions that are applicable to all regulations in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The intended effect of this action is to clarify the general provisions and definitions that apply to the regulation of emissions of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs), oxides of nitrogen ( NOx), and other pollutants in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 ( CAA or the Act). In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received by October 29, 1998. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office [ AIR   4], Air Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105   3901. Copies of the rule revision are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours and at the following locations: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 `` L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office [ AIR   4], Air Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105   3901, Telephone: ( 415) 744   1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 1, General Provisions and Definitions, submitted to EPA on June 23, 1998 by the California Air Resources Board. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: September 4, 1998. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [ FR Doc. 98   25892 Filed 9   28   98; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 144, 145 and 146 [ FRL   6170   2]

RIN 2040   AB83 Reopening of Comment Period on Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule revising the Class V Underground Injection Control ( UIC) regulations which published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1998 at ( 63 FR 40585). The reopening of the comment period will allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal. DATES: The comment period for this proposal will be reopened on September 29, 1998 and will close on November 30, 1998. Comments will only be accepted on new sections of the proposed rule ( see Table 1 of the preamble ( 63 FR 40587)). ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the UIC Class V, W   98   05 Comment Clerk, Water Docket ( MC   4101); U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be hand delivered to the Water Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW., East Tower Basement, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be submitted electronically to owdocket@ epamail. epa. gov. Please submit all references cited in your comments. Facsimiles ( faxes) cannot be accepted. EPA would appreciate one original and three copies of your comments and enclosures ( including any references). Commenters who would like EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should include a self addressed, stamped envelope. The proposed rule and supporting documents, including public comments, are available for review in the Water Docket at the above address. For information on how to access Docket materials, please call ( 202) 260   3027 between 9 a. m. and 3: 30 p. m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, phone 800   426   4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9: 00 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m. Eastern Time. For technical inquiries, contact Robyn Delehanty, Underground Injection Control Program, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( mailcode 4606), EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC, 20460. Phone: 202   260   1993. E mail: delehanty. robyn@ epamail. epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reopened comment period for the proposed rulemaking now ends November 30, 1998. All comments submitted in accordance with the instructions in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be incorporated into the Record and considered before promulgation of the final rule.

Dated: September 23, 1998. J. Charles Fox, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. [ FR Doc. 98   26008 Filed 9   28   98; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [ FRL   6169   2]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 26 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. 51883 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (`` CERCLA'' or `` the Act''), requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (`` NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (`` NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA'' or `` the Agency'') in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action( s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule proposes to add 12 new sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted ( postmarked) on or before November 30, 1998. ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail original and three copies of comments ( no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U. S. EPA; CERCLA Docket Office; ( Mail Code 5201G); 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460; 703/ 603   9232. By Express Mail: Send original and three copies of comments ( no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U. S. EPA; CERCLA Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway; Crystal Gateway # 1, First Floor; Arlington, VA 22202. By E Mail: Comments in ASCII format only may be mailed directly to SUPERFUND. DOCKET@ EPA. GOV. Emailed comments must be followed up by an original and three copies sent by mail or express mail. For additional Docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, `` Public Review/ Public Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, phone ( 703) 603   8852, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response ( Mail Code 5204G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone ( 800) 424   9346 or ( 703) 412   9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List ( NPL)? D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? I. What is the Construction Completion List ( CCL)? II. Public Review/ Public Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? B. How do I Access the Documents? C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? E. How Do I Submit My Comments? F. What Happens to My Comments? G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL B. Status of NPL IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What is Executive Order 12866? B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? V. Unfunded Mandates A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA)? B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? VIII. Executive Order 13045 A. What is Executive Order 13045? B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to this Proposed Rule? IX. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this Proposed Rule? X. Executive Order 12875 What is Executive Order 12875 and is it Applicable to this Proposed Rule? XI. Executive Order 13084 What is Executive Order 13084 and is it Applicable to this Proposed Rule?

I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 9601   9675 (`` CERCLA'' or `` the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (`` SARA''), Pub. L. 99   499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

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

C. What Is the National Priorities List ( NPL)? The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP ( 40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105( a)( 8)( B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105( a)( 8)( B) defines the NPL as a list of `` releases'' and the highest priority `` facilities'' and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. However, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 51884 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules Works, Senate Rep. No. 96   848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 ( 1980), 48 FR 40659 ( September 8, 1983). The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and cleaned up by EPA ( the `` General Superfund section''), and one of sites being addressed generally by other Federal agencies ( the `` Federal Facilities section''). Under Executive Order 12580 ( 52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action ( see 40 CFR 300.425( c) of the NCP): ( 1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (`` HRS''), which EPA promulgated as a appendix A of the NCP ( 40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 ( 55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105( c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; ( 2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( c)( 2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State ( 42 U. S. C. 9605( a)( 8)( B)); ( 3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( c)( 3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: · The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) of the U. S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release. · EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. · EPA anticipates that it will be more cost effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 ( 48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on September 18, 1998 ( 63 FR 49855).

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA ( commonly referred to as the `` Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 1). (`` Remedial actions'' are those `` consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *'' 42 U. S. C. 9601( 24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 2) placing a site on the NPL `` does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL ( to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Although a CERCLA `` facility'' is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has `` come to be located'' ( CERCLA section 101( 9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data ( if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release( s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site is listed, to describe the relevant release( s) the approach generally used is to delineate a geographical area ( usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the `` boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location to which contamination from that area has come to be located, or from which that contamination came. In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site ( e. g., the `` Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property ( e. g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( e. g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the `` site''). The `` site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the `` Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the `` nature and extent of the threat presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (`` RI/ FS'') as more information is developed on site contamination ( 40 CFR 300.430( d)). During the RI/ FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source( s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination `` has come to be located'' before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals 51885 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules more information about the location of the contamination or release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: ( i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; ( ii) All appropriate Superfund financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or ( iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. To date, the Agency has deleted 176 sites from the NPL.

H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?

In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete ( 60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of September 1998, EPA has deleted portions of 11 sites.

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

EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (`` CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities ( 58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when: ( 1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; ( 2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction ( e. g., institutional controls); or ( 3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. In addition to the 167 sites that have been deleted from the NPL because they have been cleaned up ( 9 additional sites have been deleted based on deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an additional 368 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of September 1998, the CCL consists of 535 sites. II. Public Review/ Public Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D. C. and in the appropriate Regional offices.

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the appropriate Regional docket after the appearance of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours. You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the appropriate Regional docket. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters docket ( see `` How do I submit my comments?'' section below for Regional contacts): Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway # 1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/ 603   9232. ( Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble, or contact Regional offices as detailed in the `` How do I submit my comments?'' section below.)

C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket?

The Headquarters docket for this rule contains: HRS score sheets for each proposed site; a Documentation Record for each site describing the information used to compute the score; information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. The Headquarters docket also contains an `` Additional Information'' document which provides a general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, and the economic impacts of NPL listing. D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets?

Each Regional docket for this rule contains all of the information in the Headquarters docket for sites in that Region, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for sites in that Region. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets.

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble. Regional offices may be reached at the following: Jim Kyed, Region 1 ( CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U. S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC   CAN   7, J. F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203   2211, 617/ 573   9656 Ben Conetta, Region 2 ( NJ, NY, PR, VI), U. S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007   1866, 212/ 637   4435 Kevin Wood, U. S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Mail Code: 3HS33, 215/ 814   3303 Sherryl Decker, Region 4 ( AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U. S. EPA, 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, 404/ 562   8127 Region 5 ( IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management Division 7   J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, 312/ 886   7570 Brenda Cook, Region 6 ( AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U. S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6SF   RA, Dallas, TX 75202   2733, 214/ 655   7436 Carole Long, Region 7 ( IA, KS, MO, NE), U. S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, 913/ 551   7224 David Williams, Region 8 ( CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U. S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202   2466, 303/ 312   6757 Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 ( AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U. S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/ 744   2343 David Bennett, Region 10 ( AK, ID, OR, WA), U. S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL   115, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/ 553   2103 F. What Happens to My Comments?

EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL. 51886 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?

Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria ( Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F. 2d 1516 ( D. C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?

Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.

I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?

During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an `` as received'' basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL?

In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL Table 1 identifies the 12 sites in the General Superfund section being proposed to the NPL in this rule. This table follows this preamble. All sites are proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites in Table 1 are listed alphabetically by State, for ease of identification, with group number identified to provide an indication of relative ranking. To determine group number, sites on the NPL are placed in groups of 50; for example, a site in Group 4 of this proposal has an HRS score that falls within the range of scores covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

B. Status of NPL A final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, results in an NPL of 1,194 sites, 1,041 in the General Superfund section and 153 in the Federal Facilities section. With this proposal of 12 new sites, there are now 66 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 57 in the General Superfund section and 9 in the Federal Facilities section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,260.

IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What Is Executive Order 12866? Under Executive Order 12866, ( 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? No, the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

V. Unfunded Mandates A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA)? Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?

No, EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $ 100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. 51887 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $ 100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.

B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?

While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group are hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties ( in the form of cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that might also be affected. The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this proposed rule on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement and cost recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site by site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but also its ability to pay. The impacts ( from cost recovery) on small governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a similar case by case basis. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this proposed regulation does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the Agency did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

VIII. Executive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under E. O. 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This rule is not subject to E. O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by E. O. 12866, and because it does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 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 that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070   0012 ( EPA ICR No. 574).

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?

This action does not impose any burden requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

XI. Executive Order 12875 What Is Executive Order 12875 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule?

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal governments `` to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This final rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1( a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule. 51888 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 188 / Tuesday, September 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules XII. Executive Order 13084 What Is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule?

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments `` to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

TABLE 1.   NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 26, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name City/ county Group CA ................................... Lava Cap Mine ....................................................... Nevada City ........................................................... 21 CA ................................... Omega Chemical Corporation ............................... Whittier ................................................................... 22 MN .................................. Fridley Commons Park Well Field ......................... Fridley .................................................................... 4/ 5 NJ ................................... Middlesex Sampling Plant ..................................... Middlesex ............................................................... 4/ 5 NJ ................................... United States Avenue Burn ................................... Gibbsboro ............................................................... 4/ 5 NY ................................... Hiteman Leather .................................................... West Winfield ......................................................... 4/ 5 NY ................................... Mohonk Road Industrial Plant ............................... High Falls ............................................................... 4/ 5 NY ................................... Smithtown Ground Water Contamination .............. Smithtown .............................................................. 4/ 5 OK .................................. Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing ............................... Collinsville .............................................................. 4/ 5 TX ................................... City of Perryton Well No. 2 .................................... Perryton .................................................................. 4/ 5 TX ................................... Many Diversified Interests, Inc ............................... Houston .................................................................. 19 VT ................................... Pownal Tannery ..................................................... Pownal ................................................................... 4/ 5 Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 12.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1321( c)( 2); 42 U. S. C. 9601   9657; E. O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated: September 22, 1998. Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [ FR Doc. 98   25890 Filed 9   28   98; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   U FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 68 [ CC Docket No. 98   163; FCC 98   221]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review   Modifications to Signal Power Limitations AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes increasing the signal power limitations in order to improve the transmission rates experienced by persons using high speed digital information products, such as 56 kilobits per second ( kbps) modems, to download data from the Internet. Current rules limiting the signal power that can be transmitted over telephone lines can prohibit such products from operating at their full potential. We believe that these signal power limitations may be increased without causing interference or other technical problems. We propose increasing the signal power limitations and request comment on the benefits and harms, if any, that may result from this change. Specifically, this change will allow Pulse Code Modulation ( PCM) modems, used by Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) and other online information service providers to utilize higher signal power levels to transmit data at moderately higher speeds. DATES: Comments are due on or before October 29, 1998, and reply comments are due on or before November 13, 1998. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Room 222, 1919 M Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, an electronic and a paper copy of any comments, reply comments, and supporting documents should be submitted to Vincent M. Paladini, Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau, Network Services Division, Room 235, 2000 M Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20554 or via the Internet to vpaladin@ fcc. gov. Electronic submissions must be in WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows format. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System ( ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 ( May 1, 1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to < http:/ / www. fcc. gov/ e file/ ecfs. html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e mail. To get filing instructions for e mail comments, commenters should send an e mail to ecfs@ fcc. gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, `` get form < your e mail


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37856-37857]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-77-001.
    Applicants: Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC, Public Service
Company of Colorado.
    Description: Notification of Consummation and Change in
Circumstances of Xcel Energy Services Inc., on behalf of Public Service
Company of Colorado, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190726-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1166-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Response of ISO New England Inc. to July 27, 2019
Request for Additional Information (Non-Disclosure Agreement).
    Filed Date: 7/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190726-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1641-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-07-26 Response to Deficiency
Letter--RMR CPM Enhancements to be effective 9/27/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1704-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-07-26_SA 2010 Ameren-SIPC
Second Substitute WDS Agreement to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190726-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1718-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEF IA Annual Cost Factor Filing
(2019) Response to Deficiency Letter to be effective 5/1/2019.

    Filed Date: 7/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190726-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2099-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-07-26_Amendment to Stage 1B of
ARR Allocation Process filing to be effective 8/11/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190726-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2476-000.
    Applicants: Techren Solar II LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR, Waivers,
Blanket Authority, Confidential & Expedited Action to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190726-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2478-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Resources Management, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of market-based rate
tariff to be effective 7/30/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2479-000.
    Applicants: Aera Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
to be effective 9/28/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2480-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Odom Solar Affected System
Construction Agreement Filing to be effective 6/27/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2481-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Lancaster Solar Affected
System Construction Agreement Filing to be effective 6/28/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2482-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2446R2 Municipal Energy
Agency of Nebraska NITSA and NOA to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2484-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3095R2 Missouri River Energy
Services NITSA and NOA to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2485-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: COC Cost True Filing to be
effective 7/30/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES19-45-000; ES19-46-000
    Applicants: AEP Generating Company, Kingsport Power Company.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of AEP Generating Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190729-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 29, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16488 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11159-11160]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

March 3, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-429-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc submits Eleventh Revised
Sheet No. 36 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100226-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday March 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-430-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Report of Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-5225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-431-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report Pursuant to GTC 54.3 of Tariff Reporting
Operational Transactions for Calendar Year 2009.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-5226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-432-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Annual Report of Empire Pipeline, Inc. pursuant to
GT&C Section 23.5--Compressor Fuel Factors and Other Gas for
Transporter's Use.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100301-5227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-433-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet No. 37 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-434-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits the FTS Service
Agreement with CI McKown and Son, Inc.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-435-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Company submits Ninth
Revised Sheet No. 6 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to be
effective 4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-436-000.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: MarkWest Pioneer, LLC submits Third Revised Sheet No 5
to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1, to be 4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-437-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Viking Gas Transmission Company submits an amendment
to a non conforming transportation service agreement, to be effective
4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0240.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-438-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC submits
Eighteenth Revised Sheet No 4G et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume No 1A, to be effective 3/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-439-000.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Comp.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
its Annual Fuel and Electric Power Reimbursement Adjustment pursuant to
Section 38 of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-440-
    Applicants: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Cheinere Creole Trail Pipeline, LP submits Second
Revised Sheet 5 to Original Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-441-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet No. 7 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to be
effective 4/1/2010.

    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-442-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company
    Description: ANR Storage Company submits Fifth Revised Sheet 0 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0236
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-443-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC
    Description: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet No. 17 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010
    Accession Number: 20100302-0235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-444-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, LP submit Twenty-Seventh Revised Sheet No.
5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-445-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Northern Border Pipeline Company submits Seventh
Revised Sheet 303A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1,
to be effective 3/31/10.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-446-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, LLC
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits Fourteenth Revised
Sheet No. 6 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0233.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-447-000.
    Applicants: Energy West Development, Inc.
    Description: West Development, Inc submits Sixth Revised Sheet 3 et
al. of its FERC Gas Tariff, Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-448-000.
    Applicants: Blue Lake Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Blue Lake Gas Storage Co submits Third Revised Sheet
No. 0 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-449-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Second
Revised Second Twentieth Revised Sheet 5 et al. of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-450-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Fifty-First
Revised Sheet 18 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-451-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Second Revised Sheet 10A
et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to be effective
4/1/10.
    Filed Date: 03/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-452-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Co, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet No. 101 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0245.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-453-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits the Non-Conforming
Service Agreement, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 99A to FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-0244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 15, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5062 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8293-8295]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02932]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0704; FRL-9905-59]

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F Protein in Soybean; Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant (PIP),
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein, in or on the food commodity
soybean. Dow AgroSciences LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1F protein in soybean under the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 12, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 14, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0704, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP

Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0704 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 14, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0704, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70007) (FRL-
9902-96), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 2F8066) by Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein in or on
the food commodity soybean. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner, Dow AgroSciences LLC, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance currently exist for
residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein in cotton (40 CFR
174.504) and corn (40 CFR 174.520). EPA is establishing an exemption
for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein in soybean by
amending the existing exemption in Sec.  174.504 to add soybean
commodities. In addition, as a housekeeping measure, EPA is
consolidating the existing exemptions for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F
protein into one regulatory provision without making any substantive
alterations in the existing exemptions.

III. Final Rule

A. The EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue . . . '' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that
the Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1F protein and considered its validity, completeness,
and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to
human risk. Based upon that evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein. Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1F protein in or on the food commodity soybean, when
used as a PIP in soybean and in accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices. A full explanation of the data upon which
EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found in
a January 13, 2014 document entitled, ``Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F
Protein.'' This document, as well as other relevant information, is
available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation. An analytical method for
enforcement purposes was, however, submitted by Dow AgroSciences LLC
and determined by the Agency to be suitable for quantitative
measurements of the Cry1F protein in soybean tissue. The Dow
AgroSciences LLC Cry1F Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) method
is fully discussed in the January 13, 2014 document entitled, ``Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1F Protein.''

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA
section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866,
this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

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

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  174.504 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.504  Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein in the food and
feed commodities of corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; cotton; and
soybean are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a
plant-incorporated protectant in corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop;
cotton, and soybean.

Sec.  174.520  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  174.520.
[FR Doc. 2014-02932 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33887-33888]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13721]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0452]

Seafair Air Show Performance, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of non-enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will not enforce the safety zone for the
Seafair Air Show Performance in Lake Washington, Seattle, WA in July
and August 2021. The Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound has
determined enforcement of this regulation is not necessary because this
event is cancelled.

DATES: The Coast Guard does not plan to enforce regulations in 33 CFR
165.1319 in July and August 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of non-enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Peter
McAndrew,

Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard normally enforces the safety
zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 for the Seattle Seafair Air Show Performance
held in Lake Washington, Seattle, WA. This event is typically held
annually during last week of July and the first 2 weeks of August. This
year, the event organizers cancelled Seafair. Therefore, the Coast
Guard does not plan to enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 in
July or August 2021.
    In addition to this notification of non-enforcement in the Federal
Register, if the situation changes and the Captain of the Port Sector
Puget Sound (COTP) determines that the regulated area needs to be
enforced, the COTP will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
provide actual notice of enforcement to any persons in the regulated
area.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
P.M. Hilbert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2021-13721 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54130-54131]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0690; Project Identifier AD-2021-01360-E;
Amendment 39-22167; AD 2022-18-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turboshaft
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) CT7-8A model turboshaft engines. This AD
was prompted by the manufacturer revising the airworthiness limitations
section (ALS) of the existing engine maintenance manual (EMM) to
incorporate reduced life limits for certain stage 1 turbine aft cooling
plates, stage 2 turbine forward cooling plates, turbine interstage
seals, and stage 4 turbine disks. This AD requires revising the ALS of
the existing EMM and the operator's existing approved maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate reduced life limits
for these parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0690; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE CT7-8A model
turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June
21, 2022 (87 FR 36781). The NPRM was prompted by the manufacturer
revising the ALS of the existing EMM to incorporate reduced life limits
for certain stage 1 turbine aft cooling plates, stage 2 turbine forward
cooling plates, turbine interstage seals, and stage 4 turbine disks
(life-limited parts) installed on CT7-8A model turboshaft engines.
Additionally, the manufacturer published service information that
introduced the reduced life limits. The life limits were reduced by the
manufacturer as the result of an analysis of the life management models
for these parts. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the
ALS of the applicable GE CT7-8 EMM and the operator's existing approved
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
reduced life limits for certain life-limited parts. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received one comment, from Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA). ALPA supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this
AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed GE CT7-8 Service Bulletin 72-0062, Revision 01,
dated December 22, 2021. This service information provides the reduced
life limits for certain life-limited parts.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 126 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise ALS of EMM and the operator's    1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $10,710
 existing approved maintenance or        hour = $85.
 inspection program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-18-16 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-22167; Docket No.
FAA-2022-0690; Project Identifier AD-2021-01360-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 7, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CT7-8A model
turboshaft engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section; 7250, Turbine Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the manufacturer revising the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the existing engine
maintenance manual (EMM) to incorporate reduced life limits for
certain stage 1 turbine aft cooling plates, stage 2 turbine forward
cooling plates, turbine interstage seals, and stage 4 turbine disks.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the stage 1 turbine
aft cooling plates, stage 2 turbine forward cooling plates, turbine
interstage seals, and stage 4 turbine disks. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in uncontained part release, damage
to the engine, damage to the helicopter, and possible loss of
control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the ALS of the existing GE CT7-8 Turboshaft EMM and the operator's
existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
by incorporating the following reduced life limits:
    (i) For stage 1 turbine aft cooling plate, part number (P/N)
6064T09P02, change the life limit cycles from 6,600 cycles since new
(CSN) to 4,900 CSN;
    (ii) For stage 2 turbine forward cooling plate, P/N 4106T80P01,
change the life limit cycles from 8,000 CSN to 7,200 CSN;
    (iii) For turbine interstage seal, P/N 4111T86P03, change the
life limit cycles from 29,200 CSN to 19,000 CSN; and
    (iv) For stage 4 turbine disk, P/N 6068T32P04, change the life
limit cycles from 24,100 CSN to 12,100 CSN.
    (2) After performing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative life limits may be approved.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on August 29, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18961 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P