[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71148]
[DOCID:fr08de06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-530-000; ER02-530-001]

Duke Energy Marshall, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 1, 2006.
    Duke Energy Marshall County, LLC (Duke Marshall) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of
energy, capacity and certain ancillary services at market-based rates
and for the reassignment and sale of transmission capacity. Duke
Marshall also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Duke Marshall requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Duke Marshall.
    On April 17, 2002, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Rates--West, granted the requests for blanket
approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the
Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Duke Marshall
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2006).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is December 15, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Duke Marshall is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations
or liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Duke Marshall, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Duke Marshall's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the e-Filing link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20820 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                HIGHLIGHTED EDITS MADE PURSUANT TO OMB COMMENT

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                40 CFR Part 131

                       [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X]
                               [RIN 2040-AF11]
 Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.
SUMMARY: This action is a supplemental notice of data availability and a request for comment related to EPA's January 26, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing numeric nutrient water quality criteria to protect aquatic life in lakes and flowing waters within the State of Florida. In the January 2010 NPRM, EPA proposed to classify Florida's streams into four regions (referred to in the proposed rule as "Nutrient Watershed Regions") for application of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) criteria. Streams within each of these regions (Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula and North Central) reflect similar geographical characteristics including phosphorus-rich soils, nutrient concentrations and nutrient ratios. In this notice, EPA is requesting comment on revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida. Based on comments and additional information, this revised regionalization approach would result in five Nutrient Watershed Regions for Florida's streams and a clarification of certain watershed boundaries for the Bone Valley and Peninsula regions. EPA is also requesting comment on basing the TN and TP criteria for the nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75[th] and 90[th] percentile values (depending on regions) of the benchmark sites outlined in the alternate approach at proposal. EPA is continuing to consider the primary approach proposed in January 2010 to use the 75[th] percentile of sites with healthy biological condition as measured by the Stream Condition Index (SCI). The January 2010 proposal also proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes and requested comment on alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. Today's notice also requests comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes, allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available that would use the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters flowing into the lake. EPA is seeking comment on alternative stream regionalization approaches, use of the benchmark dataset to derive criteria, and derivation of lake downstream protection values discussed in more detail below, and will consider the comments received before finalizing the proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters." This supplemental notice focuses solely on the delineation of stream nutrient regions, resulting criteria associated with two approaches (EPA's SCI-based approach and the alternative benchmark distribution approach), and protection of downstream lakes in Florida. EPA is not soliciting comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposal.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [insert date], 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, by one of the following methods:
   1. www.regulations.gov:  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
   2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>   3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
   4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

 Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at a docket facility. The Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the Docket address is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Salvaterra, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This supplementary information section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents
   I. General Information
         A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
         B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
   II. Background
   III. Supplemental Information on Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters
         A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation
         B. Downstream Protection of Lakes

I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:
   1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
   2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or to address a particular issue.
   3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
   4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
   5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
   6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. The official public docket consists of the document specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee will be charged for copies.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the "Federal Register" listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
	An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in Section I.B.1.

II. Background
      On January 26, 2010, EPA proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (75 FR 4173). EPA conducted 13 public hearing sessions in six cities in Florida and held a 90-day public comment period as part of the proposed rule generating over 22,000 public comments. EPA is reviewing and considering these comments in preparation of the final rule, which is scheduled to be signed by the EPA Administrator on October 15, 2010.
      Today's notice reflects a review of comments and new information received by the Agency as part of the public comment process, and requests further comment on possible revisions, additional options, and new information related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 26, 2010 proposal. EPA is only seeking comment on the items presented in this supplemental notice. EPA is not soliciting comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule.

III. Supplemental Information on Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters
A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation
      EPA proposed classification of Florida's streams north of Lake Okeechobee by separating watersheds with substantially different stream molar ratios of TN to TP into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR). The resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams (e.g., geology, soil composition, and/or hydrology). Reliance on a watershed-based classification approach reflects the understanding that upstream water quality affects downstream water quality. EPA requested public comment on the stream regionalization approach as well as factoring in geological influences from phosphorus-rich soils when classifying stream regions (75 FR 4195-96). EPA received public comments and information that suggested refining the proposed stream regions to account for natural variability in soil nitrogen and phosphorus as well as clarifying the boundaries of the proposed stream regions.
      Today, EPA is requesting comment on a revised approach to certain stream regions suggested by FDEP and other commenters. More specifically, EPA is considering additional information on the influence of phosphorus-rich soils and geology in Florida (associated with the Hawthorne Group) for areas in the northern Panhandle region. Based on comments and information received, the Agency is also considering further refinements to the regional boundaries separating the Peninsula region from the West Central region (referred to in the proposed rule as "Bone Valley").
      Based on geological information, EPA is considering dividing the proposed Panhandle region into a Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich) and Panhandle East (more phosphorus-rich) region. In drawing the boundary between the two regions, EPA is continuing to rely on the watershed approach described in the proposed rule and is considering using the eastern boundary of the Apalachicola River watershed as the dividing line between the two regions. EPA believes that dividing the Panhandle region in this manner may more accurately represent the natural influences on stream TP concentrations and provide finer spatial resolution with respect to TP criteria; however, we request comment on this conclusion.
      EPA is considering these adjustments in the Panhandle region to account for natural geological influences on stream phosphorus concentrations. EPA considered different approaches to classifying Florida's streams for application of TN criteria, such as the four Nutrient Watershed Regions discussed in the January 2010 proposal and two regions as originally suggested by FDEP. However, differences in the resulting TN criteria based on these stream classification schemes were minor and the approaches were comparable. Therefore, to assure consistency and clarity in applicability decisions and implementation, EPA is also considering using the same revised Panhandle delineation for stream TN criteria as well as the TP criteria. This consistency in regionalization for TN and TP provides clarity to the public on which stream criteria apply at any given location, which can help facilitate the State's implementation of both stream TN and TP criteria.
      EPA also reexamined the watershed delineations of the West Central and Peninsula regions based on comments and information from FDEP and others. As a result of this review, EPA has gained greater knowledge of the watershed boundaries and is considering refining the boundary delineations accordingly. The result for the West Central region would be a modified western boundary that shifts from Florida's west coast shoreline inland to the east as explained in more detail below. EPA believes that these possible adjustments to the West Central and Peninsula stream region boundaries more accurately reflect the watershed boundaries; however, we request comment on this conclusion.
      As a result of the new information and possible adjustments to the proposed stream regionalization approach that are outlined above, EPA is considering five Nutrient Watershed Regions for deriving TP and TN criteria for streams. The five Nutrient Watershed Regions would include a Panhandle West region encompassing Perdido Bay Watershed, Pensacola Bay Watershed, Choctawhatchee Bay Watershed, St. Andrew Bay Watershed, and Apalachicola Bay Watershed. It would also include a Panhandle East region encompassing Apalachee Bay Watershed, and Econfina/Steinhatchee Coastal Drainage Area. The West Central (Bone Valley) and Peninsula regions would be revised slightly to more accurately reflect watershed boundaries (e.g., the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor Watersheds would move from the West Central (Bone Valley) to the Peninsula region). The proposed North Central region encompassing the Suwannee River Watershed would remain unchanged.
      EPA is providing the following information in the docket to illustrate and delineate the revised Nutrient Watershed Regions under consideration: 1. Map of revised TN, TP regions, 2. Map of Hawthorne group overlaid on revised Panhandle regions, 3. GIS shapefile of revised TN, TP regions, 4. Florida geological information on the Hawthorne group (see footnote 1).
      EPA is also providing additional information in this notice and in the docket on the TN and TP criteria that are based on the revised Nutrient Watershed Regions under consideration. Using EPA's previously proposed approach (75[th] percentile) and the revised stream regions discussed in this notice, the TN and TP criteria would be: Panhandle West  -  0.84 mg/L and 0.03 mg/L, respectively; Panhandle East  -  0.77 mg/L and 0.10 mg/L, respectively; North Central  -  1.48 mg/L and 0.36 mg/L, respectively; West Central  -  1.80 mg/L and 0.73 mg/L, respectively; and Peninsula  -  1.20 mg/L and 0.10 mg/L, respectively. To illustrate the derivation of stream criteria based on the revised regions, EPA has re-organized the same nutrient dataset provided in the proposed rule and is making it available to the public in the docket for this notice. These data were organized on the basis of site averages to derive the proposed criteria outlined above.
      At proposal, EPA also requested comment on the benchmark distribution approach. In response to comments, the Agency is considering using a combination of the 75[th] and 90th percentile values (depending on regions) based on benchmark sites, with additional data quality screens applied, to establish criteria. EPA is considering the 90[th] percentile for all regions except the West Central, where the Agency is considering the 75[th] percentile due to less data available. Using the benchmark distribution approach and the revised stream regions discussed in this notice, the TN and TP criteria would be: Panhandle West  -  0.62 mg/L and 0.04 mg/L, respectively; Panhandle East  -  0.97 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L, respectively; North Central  -  1.90 mg/L and 0.35 mg/L, respectively; West Central  -  1.30 mg/L and 0.35 mg/L, respectively; and Peninsula  -  1.67 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L, respectively. Included in the docket for today's notice is the benchmark dataset presented at proposal with the additional quality assurance screens applied, that was used to calculate these values. The stream criteria using this approach are calculated on the basis of Waterbody Identifiers (WBIDs) and the derivation is outlined in more detail in the docket for today's notice. EPA requests comment on this approach.
      EPA is soliciting comment on the refined regionalization approach and criteria described in this supplemental notice. The Agency is specifically requesting comment on revised stream criteria using EPA's previously proposed approach (applied to the revised regions) as outlined above as well as alternative stream criteria based on utilization of the benchmark distribution approach applied to the revised regions, also outlined above. EPA will evaluate all data and information submitted by the close of the public comment period for this supplemental notice with regard to regionalization and criteria derivation for Florida's streams.
B. Downstream Protection of Lakes
      In its January 2010 FRN, EPA proposed a phosphorus loading model equation first developed by Vollenweider to relate a lake TP concentration criterion to the concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion. EPA proposed to apply the equation's resulting stream concentration as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake if those concentrations were more stringent than the otherwise applicable instream criteria for the stream segments. EPA mathematically derived this equation, with allowable input of lake-specific characteristics, to calculate values intended to serve as protective criteria necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the lake numeric nutrient criteria also included in the proposal (75 FR 4198).
      The proposed Vollenweider model equation requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to stream flow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA's January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that they are appropriate and documents the site-specific values.
      EPA requested comment on several technical aspects of this equation and its application. In addition, EPA requested comment on the potential to develop a corollary approach for nitrogen. Several commenters suggested the need for protective TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). EPA recognized that more specific information may be readily available for individual lakes that could allow the use of alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and requested comment in the January 2010 proposal on the availability and application of this model. EPA also requested comment on whether there should be a specific allowance for use of alternative lake-specific models where demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible based upon current and readily available data.
	EPA received many comments on this proposed approach for protection of lakes downstream of rivers and streams. Some felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic to represent all lakes in Florida and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB.
      BATHTUB is designed to apply empirical eutrophication models to morphometrically complex lakes and reservoirs. The program performs steady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, uses spatially segmented hydraulic networks, and accounts for advective and diffusive transport of nutrients. BATHTUB predicts nutrient-related water quality conditions such as total phosphorus, total nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations, transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rates. The model can apply to a variety of lake sizes, shapes and transport characteristics. A high degree of flexibility is available for specifying model segments as well as multiple influent streams. Because water quality conditions are calculated using empirically-derived relationships, BATHTUB inherently accounts for internal loading of phosphorus from bottom sediments. Additional technical references are available that describe the model and its applications.
      For the provision of EPA's proposed rule for deriving criteria for protection of downstream lakes (§ 131.43(c)(2)(ii)), EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB rather than a loading model equation based on Vollenweider. The rule would therefore require that the criteria for protection of downstream lakes would be the more stringent of the instream TP and TN criteria value or the concentration of TP and TN derived from application of BATHTUB.  The resulting criteria using BATHTUB could be either more or less stringent than the criteria derived using Vollenweider, depending on site-specific lake factors. EPA believes BATHTUB may be more appropriate for downstream protection value calculations than Vollenweider because BATHTUB has the capability to represent a greater number of site-specific variables, which may influence nutrient responses. In addition, BATHTUB can estimate TN concentrations. As noted above, a number of commenters observed that a limitation in EPA's original proposal was that it only addressed TP.
      EPA is also considering additional rule language that would specifically authorize FDEP or EPA to use a model other than BATHTUB when either determines that it would be appropriate to use another scientifically defensible technical model or approach that demonstrates protection of downstream lakes. While BATHTUB is a peer reviewed and versatile model, there are other models that, when appropriately calibrated and applied, can offer additional capability to address more complex situations and address an even greater degree of site-specificity.
      One example of an alternative model that FDEP or EPA might consider using for particularly complex site-specific conditions is the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) model. This model allows users to conduct detailed simulations of water quality responses to natural and manmade pollutant inputs. WASP is a dynamic compartment-modeling program for aquatic systems, including both the water column and the underlying benthos. WASP allows the user to simulate systems in 1, 2, or 3 dimensions, and a variety of pollutant types. The model can represent time varying processes of advection, dispersion, point and diffuse mass loading, and boundary exchange. WASP also can be linked with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models that can provide flows, depths, velocities, temperature, salinity and sediment fluxes. Additional technical information may be found at http://www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/wasp.html.
      EPA is considering recommending BATHTUB as the method for calculating the TN and TP downstream protective values in streams that flow into lakes because of its ability to incorporate site-specific factors in estimates, its use of data that may be readily available, and its ease of use and rapid processing time. BATHTUB has been used to model nutrients in lakes and reservoirs throughout the United States. BATHTUB allows for greater site-specificity than the Vollenweider approach, and input of more local information to calculate concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus in streams that assure downstream protection of lakes. In certain circumstances, a more complex model such as WASP may be appropriate, and EPA is considering and requesting comment on adding specific provisions to allow either the Agency or FDEP to use an alternative model such as WASP where greater spatial or temporal detail in model output is called for, or where water quality considerations that fall outside the scope of BATHTUB are to be explicitly considered.
      EPA is also requesting comment on including a provision in this section of the rule that would provide that if data are not readily available to derive a TN or TP downstream protection value using BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model, the lake criteria values for TN and TP would be used as the downstream protection values where they are more stringent than the instream values. EPA believes that this approach is protective because the allowable concentration of nutrients entering the lake would be equal to criteria that are protective of the lake water itself; however, this approach may result in the application of more stringent criteria in the streams entering the lake than would be calculated using BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model if site-specific data were available.
      EPA is soliciting comment on the approaches to protect downstream lakes described in this supplemental notice. EPA will evaluate all data and information submitted by the close of the public comment period for this supplemental notice with regard to nutrient criteria to protect downstream lakes in Florida.

Dated: July 29, 2010.

Peter S. Silva,
Assistant Administrator for Water.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 197 (Friday, October 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64186-64189]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22376]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90088; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2020-85]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Harmonize Rules
10.9261 and 10.9830 With Recent Changes by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.

October 5, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 23, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to harmonize Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 with
recent changes by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') that temporarily grants the Chief or Deputy Chief Hearing
Officer the authority to order that hearings be conducted by video
conference if warranted by public health risks posed by in-person
hearings during the ongoing novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'') pandemic.
As proposed, these temporary amendments would be in effect through
December 31, 2020. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to harmonize Rules 10.9261 (Evidence and
Procedure in Hearing) and 10.9830 (Hearing) with recent changes by
FINRA to its Rules 9261 and 9830 that temporarily grants to the Chief
or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer the authority to order that hearings be
conducted by video conference if warranted by public health risks posed
by in-person hearings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As
proposed, these temporary amendments would be in effect through
December 31, 2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange may submit a separate rule filing to extend the
expiration date of the proposed temporary amendments if the Exchange
requires temporary relief from the rule requirements identified in
this proposal beyond December 31, 2020. The amended NYSE Arca rules
will revert back to their current state at the conclusion of the
temporary relief period and any extension thereof.

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

Background
    In 2019, NYSE Arca adopted disciplinary rules based on the text of
the Rule 8000 and Rule 9000 Series of its affiliate NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American''), with certain changes. The NYSE American
disciplinary rules are, in turn, substantially the same as the Rule
8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series of FINRA and the New York Stock
Exchange LLC.\5\ The NYSE Arca disciplinary rules were implemented on
May 27, 2019.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85639 (April 12,
2019), 85 FR 16346 (April 18, 2019) (SR-NYSEARCA-2019-15) (``2019
Notice'').
    \6\ See NYSE Arca Equities RB-19-060 & NYSE Arca Options RB-19-
02 (April 26, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting disciplinary rules modeled on FINRA's rules, NYSE Arca
adopted the hearing and evidentiary processes set forth in Rule 10.9261
and in Rule 10.9830 for hearings in matters involving temporary and
permanent cease and desist orders under the Rule 9800 Series. As
adopted, the text of Rule 10.9261 and Rule 10.9830 are substantially
the same as the FINRA rules with certain modifications.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2019 Notice, 84 FR at 16365 & 16373-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the ongoing spread of COVID-19 and its effect on FINRA's
adjudicatory functions nationwide, FINRA recently filed a temporary
rule change to grant FINRA's Office of Hearing Officers (``OHO'') and
the National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') the authority to conduct
certain hearings by video conference, if warranted by the current
COVID-19-related public health risks posed by in-person hearings. Among
the rules FINRA amended were Rules 9261 and 9830.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83289 (September 2,
2020), 85 FR 55712 (September 9, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-027) (``FINRA
Filing''). FINRA also proposed to temporarily amend FINRA Rules 1015
and 9524. FINRA Rule 1015 governs the process by which an applicant
for new or continuing membership can appeal a decision rendered by
FINRA's Department of Member Supervision under FINRA Rule 1014 or
1017 and request a hearing which would be conducted by a
subcommittee of the NAC. See id. at 55714. The Exchange has not
adopted FINRA Rule 1015. FINRA Rule 9524 governs the process by
which a statutorily disqualified member firm or associated person
can appeal the Department's recommendation to deny a firm or
sponsoring firm's application to the NAC. See id. Under the
Exchange's version of Rule 10.9524, if the Chief Regulatory Officer
rejects the application, the ETP Holder, OTP Holder or OTP Firm, or
applicant may request a review by the Exchange Board of Directors.
This differs from FINRA's process, which provides for a hearing
before the NAC and further consideration by the FINRA Board of
Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA represented in its filing that its protocol for conducting
hearings by video conference would ensure that such hearings maintain
fair process for the parties by, among other things, FINRA's use of a
high quality, secure and user-friendly video conferencing service and
provide thorough instructions, training and technical support to all
hearing participants.\9\ According to FINRA, the proposed changes were
a reasonable interim solution to allow FINRA's critical adjudicatory
processes to continue to function while protecting the health and
safety of hearing participants as FINRA works towards resuming in-
person hearings in a manner that is compliant with the current guidance
of public health authorities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to a regulatory services agreement (``RSA''), FINRA's OHO
will administer all aspects of adjudications, including assigning
hearing officers to serve as NYSE Arca hearing officers. A hearing
officer from OHO will, among other things, preside over the
disciplinary hearing, select and chair the hearing panel, and prepare
and issue written decisions. The Chief or Deputy Hearing Officer for
all Exchange disciplinary hearings are currently drawn from OHO and are
all FINRA employees. The Exchange believes that OHO will utilize the
same video conference protocol and processes for Exchange matters under
the RSA as it proposes for FINRA matters.
    Given that FINRA and its OHO administers disciplinary hearings on
the Exchange's behalf, and given that the public health concerns
addressed by FINRA's amendments apply equally to the Exchange's
disciplinary hearings, the Exchange proposes to temporarily amend its
disciplinary rules to allow FINRA to conduct virtual hearings on its
behalf.
Proposed Rule Change
    Rule 10.9261(b) states that if a disciplinary hearing is held, a
party shall be entitled to be heard in-person, by counsel, or by the
party's representative. Absent an agreement by all parties to proceed
in another manner, Exchange disciplinary hearings are in-person. As
noted, the Chief and Deputy Hearing Officers for all Exchange and
cross-market matters are supplied by OHO and are FINRA employees.
Accordingly, absent an agreement by all parties to proceed in another
manner, under Rule 10.9261(b) the Chief or Deputy Hearing Officer
conducts disciplinary hearings in-person.
    Similarly, Rule 10.9830 outlines the requirements for hearings for
temporary and permanent cease and desist orders. Rule 10.9830(a),
however, does not specify that a party shall be entitled to be heard
in-person, by counsel, or by the party's representative.
    Consistent with FINRA's temporary amendment to FINRA Rules 9261 and
9830, the Exchange proposes to temporarily grant the Chief or Deputy
Chief Hearing Officer temporary authority to order, upon consideration
of the current COVID-19-related public health risks presented by an in-
person hearing, that a hearing under those rules be conducted by video
conference. The proposed rule change will permit OHO to make an
assessment, based on critical COVID-19 data and criteria and the
guidance of health and security consultants, whether an in-person
hearing would compromise the health and safety of the hearing
participants such that the hearing should proceed by video conference.
As noted, FINRA has adopted a detailed and thorough protocol to ensure
that hearings conducted by video conference will maintain fair process
for the parties.\11\ The Exchange believes that this is a reasonable
procedure to follow in hearings under Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 chaired
by a FINRA employee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
    \12\ The Exchange notes, as did FINRA, that SEC's Rules of
Practice pertaining to temporary cease-and-desist orders provide
that parties and witnesses may participate by telephone or, in the
Commission's discretion, through the use of alternative technologies
that allow remote access, such as a video link. See SEC Rule of
Practice 511(d)(3); Comment (d); see FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55714,
n. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effectuate these changes, the Exchange proposes to add the
following sentence to Rule 10.9261(b):

    Upon consideration of the current public health risks presented
by an in-person hearing, the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief
Hearing Officer may, on a temporary basis, determine that the
hearing shall be conducted, in whole or in part, by video
conference.

    The proposed text is identical to the language adopted by
FINRA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to add the following text to Rule
10.9830(a):

    Upon consideration of the current public health risks presented
by an in-person hearing, the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief
Hearing Officer may, on a temporary basis, determine that the
hearing shall be conducted, in whole or in part, by video
conference.

    Once again, the proposed language is identical to the language
adopted by FINRA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\16\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is designed to provide a fair procedure for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members,
consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between
Exchange rules and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As previously
noted, the text of Rule 10.9261 and Rule 10.9830 are substantially the
same as FINRA's rule. As such, the proposed rule change will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and will remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary rule change will
permit the Exchange to effectively conduct hearings during the COVID-19
pandemic in situations where in-person hearings present likely public
health risks. The ability to conduct hearings by video conference will
thereby permit the adjudicatory functions of the Exchange's
disciplinary rules to continue unabated, thereby avoiding protracted
delays. The Exchange believes that this is especially important in
matters where temporary and permanent cease and desist orders are
sought because the proposed rule change would enable those hearings to
proceed without delay, thereby enabling the Exchange to take immediate
action to stop significant, ongoing customer harm, to the benefit of
the investing public.
    Conducting hearings via video conference will give the parties and
adjudicators simultaneous visual and oral communication without the
risks inherent in physical proximity during a pandemic. Temporarily
permitting hearings for disciplinary matters to proceed by video
conference maintains fair process by providing respondents a timely
opportunity to address and potentially resolve any allegations of
misconduct.
    As noted, FINRA will use a high quality, secure video conferencing
technology with features that will allow the parties to reasonably
approximate those tasks that are typically performed at an in-person
hearing, such as sharing documents, marking documents, and utilizing
breakout rooms. FINRA will also provide training for participants on
how to use the video conferencing platform and detailed guidance on the
procedures that will govern such hearings. Moreover, the Chief or
Deputy Chief Hearing Officer may take into consideration, among other
things, a hearing participant's access to connectivity and technology
in scheduling a video conference hearing and can also, at their
discretion, allow a party or witness to participate by telephone, if
necessary, to address such access issues.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See text accompanying notes 9-10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is designed to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of
members and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections
6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\19\ The Exchange believes that the
temporary proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance between
providing fair process and enabling the Exchange to fulfill its
statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain fair and
orderly markets while accounting for the significant health and safety
risks of in-person hearings stemming from the outbreak of COVID-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but is rather intended
solely to provide temporary relief given the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic. In its filing, FINRA provides an abbreviated economic impact
assessment maintaining that the changes are necessary to temporarily
rebalance the attendant benefits and costs of the obligations under
FINRA Rules 1015, 9261, 9524 and 9830 in response to the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic that is equally applicable to the changes the
Exchange proposes.\20\ The Exchange accordingly incorporates FINRA's
abbreviated economic impact assessment by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-85 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-85. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-85 and should
be submitted on or before October 30, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22376 Filed 10-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Cooling Water Intake Structure ( CWIS) Information Data Required Rig Information Rig Name Noble Bill Jennings Rig Type Jackup Total Installed Power Generation Capacity 5,850 HP Number of Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) 4 Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe) 3 Deep Well Towers 1 Sea Chest Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether onboard CWIS has an existing flange 6" Deep Well; Flanged at tower top 10" Sea Chest; No Flange Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size None Total Design Specifications for Daily Maximum Water Intake Volume of each CWIS 1,728,006 gals ( 41,143 bbls)

Total Daily Water Intake Volume of each CWIS ( Set up/ Drilling) 1,728,006 gals ( 41,143 bbls)

Design Specs for Through Screen Velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( Set up/ Drilling) Deep Well = 1.2 ft. per second Sea Chest = 3.7 ft. per second List of Purposes of Cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes) Brake Water Cooling List of Purposes of Non cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., fire water, hotel loads) Fire pump, Sanitary, Watermakers Total Volume of Water Intake for Ballasting, Duration of the Ballast intake, and the Through Screen Velocity of the Ballast intake 1,631,112 gal ( 38,836 bbls) Ballast Water ( preload) on board approx. 6 hours. Thru screen velocity = 1.2 fps Mitigation Measures for reducing Exotic Species Migration through Ballast water Ballast water not transported. It is taken on and dumped from the same location. Mitigation Measures for reducing Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms, as well as Bio fouling Prevention Measures Cover over sea chest, cathodic protection.

Is the Rig equipped with a Radiator Cooling System for the Main Engines? Yes


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19108]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification
of Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. 14 CFR part 139 establishes certification requirements for
airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with 10-
30 seats. These requirements result in information collections from
respondents.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0675
    Title: Certification of Airports.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 5280-1.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The statutory authority to issue airport operating
certificates to airports serving certain air carriers and to establish
minimum safety standards for the operation of those airports is
currently found in Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) Sec.  44706,
Airport operation certificates. The FAA uses this authority to issue
requirements for the certification and operation of certain land
airports. These requirements are contained in Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulation part 139 (14 CFR part 139), Certification and Operations:
Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, as amended. Information
collection requirements are used by the FAA to determine an airport
operator's compliance with part 139 safety and operational
requirements, and to assist airport personnel to perform duties
required under the regulation.
    Respondents: Approximately 563 airports.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 22 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 100,132 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 2, 2015.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-08119 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 185)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48882-48884]
[DOCID:fr25se09-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0376; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-322-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-200B, 747-
300, and 747SR Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-200B, 747-300, and 747SR
series airplanes. The original NPRM proposed to require installation of
a closeout panel and moisture curtains for the main equipment center.
The original NPRM also proposed to require changing the drain tubes for
the power drive units (PDU) and the pitot static tubes and installing
larger moisture shrouds. The original NPRM resulted from a report of
water contamination in the electrical and electronic units in the main
equipment center. This action revises the original NPRM by adding
airplanes to the applicability and removing certain others, and
removing certain requirements. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM
to prevent the malfunction of one or more electrical and electronic
units in the main equipment center, which could adversely affect the
airplane's continued safe flight.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by October
20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Smith, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0376;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-322-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-200B, 747-
300, and 747SR series airplanes. That original NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on April 1, 2008 (73 FR 17258). The original NPRM
proposed to require installation of a closeout panel and moisture
curtains for the main equipment center. The original NPRM also proposed
to require changing the drain tubes for the power drive units and the
pitot static tubes and installing larger moisture shrouds.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have reviewed a new revision
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3368. The original NPRM
referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision 1,
dated June 25, 2007, as the appropriate source of service information
for installing a closeout panel and moisture curtains. We have reviewed
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision 2, dated June 12, 2008.
Revision 2 adds instructions to fabricate parts. In addition, the
effectivity of the service bulletin changed, adding 14 airplanes and
removing 3 airplanes.
    We have revised paragraph (f) of the original NPRM (which is now
paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM) to refer

to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision 2, dated June 12,
2008. We have also revised paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM to
clarify the additional work that must be done if actions have been
accomplished in accordance with the original issue of the service
bulletin. We have also added a new paragraph (i) to this supplemental
NPRM to allow credit for actions accomplished in accordance with
Revision 1 of the service bulletin. We have reidentified the subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

Removal of Requirement To Install Larger Moisture Shrouds and
Additional Drain Lines

    The original NPRM referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
25A3346, dated September 13, 2007, as the source of information for
changing the PDU drain tubes and pitot static tubes, and installing
larger moisture shrouds. We have deleted all reference to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-25A3346 because Boeing is currently revising that
service bulletin, and waiting for the revision would prevent mandating
the interim solution in a timely manner. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-25A3346 currently provides instructions that do not work for
installing some of the drain lines because the airplanes do not have
the configuration that Boeing expected. Therefore, we deleted reference
to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3346, dated September 13, 2007,
from the applicability statement of the original NPRM. We also deleted
the requirement to install the larger moisture shrouds and additional
drain lines in paragraph (g) of the original NPRM, and we deleted Note
2 of the original NPRM. As a result, this proposed AD action is
interim, and we may require a final action when we approve the revised
service information.

Explanation of Additional Paragraph in the Supplemental NPRM

    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this supplemental NPRM to
provide Air Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 25:
Equipment/furnishings. This code is added to make the format of this
supplemental NPRM parallel with other new AD actions. We have
reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Interim Action

    We consider this supplemental NPRM interim action. The manufacturer
is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 47 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply
with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
           Action                Work hours         Parts           Cost per       registered       Fleet cost
                                                                    product         airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation................  Up to 10.......  Up to $11,672..  Up to $12,472..              47  Up to $586,184.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0376; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
322-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 20, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-200B, 747-300,
and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision 2, dated
June 12, 2008.

    Note 1: The affected airplanes are those that have been
converted by Boeing to the Boeing Special Freighter configuration.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of water contamination in the
electrical and electronic units in the main equipment center. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the malfunction of one or more electrical
and electronic units in the main equipment center, which could
adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Install the Closeout Panel and Moisture Curtains

    (g) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
install the closeout panel and moisture curtains for the main
equipment center, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision 2, dated June 12, 2008.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of the Service
Bulletin

    (h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, dated August 25, 2005, are acceptable
for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, provided that the additional work specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
25A3368, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2007; or Revision 2, dated June
12, 2008; is accomplished. The additional work required is to cap
seal all rivets fastening the mounting base assembly to the moisture
shroud as given in Figure 10 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
25A3368, Revision 2, dated June 12, 2008, and to fill any unused
pilot holes in the mounting base assembly in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
25A3368, Revision 2, dated June 12, 2008; or cap seal all rivets
fastening the mounting base assembly to the moisture shroud as given
in Figure 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision
1, dated June 25, 2007, and to fill any unused pilot holes in the
mounting base assembly in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision
1, dated June 25, 2007.
    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3368, Revision
1, dated June 25, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Marcia Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, e-mail information
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 16, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23190 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71641-71642]
[DOCID:fr25no08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP98-150-012]

Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Petition To Amend

November 19, 2008.
    Take notice that on November 17, 2008, Millennium Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Millennium), One Blue Hill Plaza, Seventh Floor, P.O. Box 1565,
Pearl River, New York 10965, filed in Docket No. CP98-150-012, a
petition to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity
issued on December 21, 2006 in Docket No. CP98-150-006, et al. It is
stated that Millennium seeks authority to amend its certificate
authorization to allow it to implement a contingency plan to acquire,
construct, and operate additional facilities if it is unable to
complete the horizontal directional drill at the East Branch of the
Delaware River or at Wheeler Creek in time to make its facilities
available for service prior to December 31, 2008. Specifically,
Millennium requests authorization to (1) decrease the diameter of the
pipeline facilities to be constructed at Wheeler Creek from 30 inches
to 24 inches, and permanently provide service utilizing the reduced
diameter facilities; (2) delay completion of the horizontal directional
drill (HDD) at the East Branch of the Delaware River until no later
than September 30, 2009; (3) acquire from Columbia two 10-inch diameter
pipelines and a small segment of one 12-inch diameter pipeline located
to the west of the two 10-inch lines (Crossing Facilities) which
Columbia is authorized to abandon in place; (4) construct limited
facilities, including approximately 850 feet of 12-inch pipeline,
cathodic protection equipment and overpressure protection facilities,
necessary to interconnect Columbia's Crossing Facilities with
Millennium's newly constructed 30-inch diameter mainline at the East
Branch of the Delaware River; and (5) provide service utilizing the
Crossing Facilities until such time as Millennium completes the HDD or
implements an approved alternative at the East Branch of the Delaware
River. It is stated that it the requested authorizations would only be
implemented if Millennium determines that either of the HDDs would not
be completed in time to permit Millennium to make its system available
for service prior to December 31, 2008.
    It is also stated that if Millennium is able to complete one HDD,
but not the other HDD, Millennium would only implement the
authorization that applies to the HDD it is unable to complete, all as
more fully set forth in the petition to amend which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any initial questions regarding Millennium's proposal in this
petition should be directed to counsel for Millennium, Daniel F.
Collins or Letitia W. McKoy, Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., 801
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004; telephone (202) 662-
4586 (Daniel) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Letitia), fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this

project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to
the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit the
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Comment Date: November 26, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27918 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P