[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52175-52177]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD;
Amendment 39-18248; AD 2015-17-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, &
702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-
600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by
results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the
flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve
of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure
of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose
to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. This AD
requires replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved
assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen
in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed
fire if an ignition source is nearby.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 2,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0822.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-
2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19574).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-37, dated October 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-
2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Design review found that the burst pressure of the flexible
hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the
oxygen cylinder overboard, is lower than the opening pressure of the
high-pressure relief valve. This could cause the flexible hose to
burst before it is able to vent the excess oxygen overboard. If an
ignition source is present, the accumulation of oxygen in an
enclosed space may result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the oxygen hose
assembly with a new design oxygen hose assembly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822-0004.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80
FR 19574, April 13, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

    Mesa Airlines and Envoy Air Inc. asked that the compliance time
specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (80 FR 19574, April 13,
2015) be changed.
    Mesa Airlines stated that the current compliance time would
immediately ground 78 airplanes on the effective date of the AD, and
with increased demand for replacement parts it would be difficult to
recover. Mesa Airlines asked that we change the compliance time to
``Within 6,000 flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.'' Mesa Airlines added that
this would allow for scheduling with heavy maintenance inspection and
parts procurement.
    Envoy Air Inc. stated that a large number of affected airplanes
have flown more than 5,800 total flight hours. Envoy Air Inc. noted
that the proposed compliance time ``before the accumulation of 5,800
total flight hours'' would mean that most of the affected airplanes
would be required to comply with this AD prior to the effective date to
remain in compliance. Envoy Air Inc. asked that we change the
compliance time to ``Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months, whichever
occurs first, from the effective date of the AD.'' Envoy Air Inc.
stated that this would more clearly communicate the desired compliance
time for this AD.
    We partially agree with the requests. We have changed the
compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD to ``Within 5,800 flight
hours or 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.'' This change matches the compliance time listed in the
MCAI, and will allow operators to remain in compliance.
    We do not agree that the compliance time should be extended to
``Within 6,000 flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.'' After

considering all the available information, we have determined that the
compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time in which the
required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the
affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In
developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety
implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for
timely accomplishment of the replacement. However, if additional data
are presented that would justify a longer compliance time, we may
consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed the AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 19574, April 13, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 19574, April 13, 2015).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B,
dated May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013. The
service information describes procedures for replacing the oxygen hose
assembly with a new, improved assembly. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it takes about 10 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. Required parts will cost
about $0 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $340,000, or $850 per airplane.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822; 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 AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 (AD):

2015-17-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18248. Docket No. FAA-
2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10336 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes,
serial numbers 15001 through 15297 inclusive.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series
1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19038 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating
that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen
from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder
overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure
relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it
can vent the excess oxygen overboard. We are issuing this AD to
prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could
result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is
nearby.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace all oxygen hose
assemblies having part number (P/N) S6946-01 with new, improved
assemblies having P/N BA670-44025-001, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-
013, Revision B, dated May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May
21, 2013. For airplanes on which Supplemental Type Certificate
ST01648NY (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01648NY.pdf) is
installed, only PART B of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B, dated May 20,
2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013, is required.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the replacement specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if that action was performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-
35-013, dated May 21, 2013; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-
013, Revision A, dated September 23, 2013; which are not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
oxygen hose assembly, P/N S6946-01, on any airplane.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-37, dated October
17, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822-0004.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B, dated
May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2015.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20961 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38613]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
and/or teleconferences related to the transmission planning activities
of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP):

Finance Committee Task Force on Order 1000
    June 26, 2012, 10:00 a.m.-3 p.m. CDT
Regional Tariff Working Group
    June 28, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-2 p.m. CDT
    July 25, 2012, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. CDT
    July 26, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-2 p.m. CDT
Seams FERC Order 1000 Task Force
    June 29, 2012, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
    July 13, 2012, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. CDT

    The above-referenced meetings will be held at:

AEP Offices, 1201 Elm Street, 8th Floor, Dallas, TX 75270.

    The above-referenced meetings and teleconferences are open to
stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.spp.org.
    The discussions at the meetings and teleconferences described above
may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER09-35-001, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC.
Docket No. ER09-36-001, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC.
Docket No. ER09-548-001, ITC Great Plains, LLC.
Docket No. ER11-4105-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34-001, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1179-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1415-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1460-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1610-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1772-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    For more information, contact Luciano Lima, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6210 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 21, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15835 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15349-15355]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05855]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0153, OLEM-2021-0455, OLEM-2022-0190, 0191, 0192, and
0193; FRL-9185-01-OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, 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. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add five sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. This document also withdraws a previous
proposal for NPL addition.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before May 17, 2022.
    As of March 18, 2022, the proposed rule published April 7, 2016, at
81 FR 20277, is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                   City/county, state                      Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgetown North Groundwater.........  Georgetown, DE.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0190
Highway 3 PCE........................  Le Mars, IA............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0455
Hercules Inc.........................  Hattiesburg, MS........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0191
Lower Hackensack River...............  Bergen and Hudson        EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0192
                                        Counties, NJ.
Brillo Landfill......................  Victory, NY............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0193
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may send comments, identified by the appropriate docket number, by
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Agency Website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/current-npl-updates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-new-npl-sites; scroll down to the
site for which you would like to submit comments and click the
``Comment Now'' link.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the appropriate
Docket ID No. for site(s) for which you are submitting comments.
Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Review/Public Comment''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email: [email protected], Assessment and Remediation Division, Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Mail code 5204T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May 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 EPA
Headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
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. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
II. 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. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal for NPL Addition
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic
access at https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the
ADDRESSES section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled
appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket
Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA dockets: Mail
comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this
preamble.)
    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
     Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-3355.
     Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8926.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.

     Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
214/665-3154.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
     Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
     Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/972-3160.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. 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. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing them, oversized maps may be
viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both
copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out
electronically.
    You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket. Please note that there are
differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets
and those differences are outlined in this preamble below.

C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the
following information for the sites proposed in this rule: Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score sheets; documentation records describing the
information used to compute the score; information for any sites
affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing
policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional
dockets?

    The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Follow the online instructions detailed above in the ADDRESSES
section for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

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 the 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)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

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

I. May 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
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Once in the public dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that 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.

II. 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 or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the 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
or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of
any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or
substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The 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 of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (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. 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 the 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, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies.
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 the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.

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 HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, 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) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may
designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL,
without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the
extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each
state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the
environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for
listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third
mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3),
allows certain sites to be listed without any 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.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The 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.

    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

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.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    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. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance 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, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily 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 where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where 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. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. Plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
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, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore 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 known 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 previously, 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, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The 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 the 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.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a 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 made available for productive use.

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

    The 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) the 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. For more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted
sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been
achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA
has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions
that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for
current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated
properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For
further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
    The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state
and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1)
explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for
proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3)
emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states
that information on their responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and
tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add five sites to
the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this
rule are being proposed for NPL addition based on an HRS score of 28.50
or above.

    The sites are presented in the tables below.

                        General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State                  Site name               City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE.....................  Georgetown North         Georgetown.
                          Groundwater.
IA.....................  Highway 3 PCE..........  Le Mars.
MS.....................  Hercules Inc...........  Hattiesburg.
NJ.....................  Lower Hackensack River.  Bergen and Hudson
                                                   Counties.
NY.....................  Brillo Landfill........  Victory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal for NPL Addition

    The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Riverside
Groundwater Contamination site in Indianapolis, Indiana, to the NPL
because the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) will
continue to take or ensure appropriate actions to address the site in
compliance with a 2017 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with EPA that
deferred addition of the site to the NPL while the state oversees
response actions. The MOA outlines IDEM's commitment to investigate the
nature and extent of contamination and clean up the site to the same
standards as an EPA-lead cleanup. Under the MOA all site investigations
and cleanups are being performed under state enforcement actions. The
state will identify and address contamination on individual properties
that are a potential source of chlorinated solvents through Voluntary
Remediation Agreements, Brownfield Comfort Letters, and the State
Cleanup Program. IDEM will continue to ensure any remaining
contamination in groundwater does not pose a human health exposure
risk. The rule proposing to add this site to the NPL can be found at 81
FR 20277 (April 7, 2016). Refer to the Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2016-0153 for supporting documentation regarding this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local, or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the 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, pollutants or need
contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not
assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not
mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily be taken.

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.

Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 300 as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Amend appendix B of part 300 in Table 1, by adding entries for ``DE,
Georgetown North Groundwater'', ``IA, Highway 3 PCE'', ``MS, Hercules
Inc'', ``NJ, Lower Hackensack River'', and ``NY, Brillo Landfill'' in
alphabetical order by state to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                      Site name                 City/county                 Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
DE............................  Georgetown North           Georgetown..............
                                 Groundwater.

                                                  * * * * * * *
IA............................  Highway 3 PCE............  Le Mars.................

                                                  * * * * * * *
MS............................  Hercules Inc.............  Hattiesburg.............

                                                  * * * * * * *
NJ............................  Lower Hackensack River...  Bergen and Hudson
                                                            Counties.

                                                  * * * * * * *
NY............................  Brillo Landfill..........  Victory.................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
  score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-05855 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39050-39051]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0021]

Standard on Vinyl Chloride; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
the Standard on Vinyl Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
September 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0021,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0021). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments see
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with
an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Standard specifies a number of paperwork requirements. The
following is a brief description of the collection of information
requirements contained in the Vinyl Chloride (VC) Standard.

 (A) Exposure Monitoring (Sec.  1910.1017(d))

    Paragraph 1910.1017(d)(2) requires employers to conduct exposure
monitoring at least quarterly if the results show that employee
exposures are above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), while those
exposed at or above the Action Level (AL) must be monitored no less
than semiannually. Paragraph (d)(3) requires that employers perform
additional monitoring whenever there has been a change in VC
production, process or control that may result in an increase in the
release of VC.

(B) Written Compliance Plan (Sec.  1910.1017(f)(2) and (f)(3))

    Paragraph (f)(2) requires employers whose engineering and work
practice controls cannot sufficiently reduce employee VC exposures to a
level at or below the PEL to develop and implement a plan for doing so.
Paragraph (f)(3) requires employers to develop this written plan and
provide it upon request to OSHA for examination and copying. These
plans must be updated annually.

(C) Medical Surveillance (Sec.  1910.1017(k))

    Paragraph (k) requires employers to develop a medical surveillance
program for employees exposed to VC in excess of the action level.
Examinations must be provided in accordance with this paragraph at
least annually. Employers must also obtain, and provide to each
employee, a copy of a physician's statement regarding the employee's
suitability for continued exposure to VC, including use of protective
equipment and respirators, if appropriate.

(D) Recordkeeping (Sec.  1910.1017(m))

    Employers must maintain employee exposure and medical records. The
VC standard requires that employers make available monitoring,
measuring, and medical records at the request of the Assistant
Secretary (usually an OSHA compliance officer).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection
of information requirements contained in the Standard on Vinyl Chloride
(29 CFR 1910.1017). The Agency is requesting to reduce its current
burden hour estimate associated with the Standard from 1,758 hours to
712 hours for a total reduction of 1,046 hours. This decrease (based on
new data obtained by the Agency) is a result of reducing the number of
VC and PVC establishments from 77 to 32 establishments. The Agency will
include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of
these collection of information requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Vinyl Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017).
    OMB Number: 1218-0010.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 32.
    Total Responses: 1,108.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for
employers to maintain records to 12 hours for employers to update their
compliance plans.
    Total Burden Hours: 1,758.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $48,928.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to
this notice by (1) Hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3)
electronically through the OSHA Webpage. Because of security-related
problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments
by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand
delivery and courier service.
    All comments, submissions and background documents are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Webpage are
available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through the OSHA Webpage and
for assistance using the Webpage to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other
relevant documents are available on OSHA's Webpage. Since all
submissions become public, private information such as social security
numbers should not be submitted.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 1, 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-15393 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26511-26514]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0315]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River, Inner Harbor;
Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
encompassing certain waters of the Patapsco River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
a fireworks display launched from a barge located within the Inner
Harbor at Baltimore, MD, on July 2, 2015. This safety zone is intended
to protect the maritime public in a portion of the Patapsco River.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Baltimore Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on

viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0315] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0315) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    This rule involves a fireworks display associated with an event
that will take place in Baltimore, MD, on July 2, 2015. The launch site
for the fireworks display is from a discharge barge located in the
Patapsco River. The permanent safety zones listed in the Table to 33
CFR 165.506 do not apply to this event.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.
Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near the
navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards associated
with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such events. The
purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a
fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the
potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as the
accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling
hot embers or other debris. This rule is needed to ensure safety on the
waterway before, during and after the scheduled event.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Under Armour will sponsor a fireworks display launched from a barge
located in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD, scheduled on July 2, 2015
at approximately 9:30 p.m.
    Through this regulation, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a
temporary safety zone. The proposed zone will encompass all waters of
the Patapsco River, within a 300 yards radius of a fireworks discharge
barge in approximate position latitude 39[deg]16'56'' N, longitude
076[deg]36'19'' W, located in the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, Maryland,
MD. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through
10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015.
    The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the regulated area immediately before, during, and
immediately after the fireworks display. Vessels will be allowed to
transit the waters of the Patapsco River outside the safety zone.
    This rule requires that entry into or remaining in this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port
Baltimore. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it
is implemented are to depart the zone. To seek permission to transit
the area of the safety zone, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be
contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio VHF-
FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety
zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Federal, state, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in
the enforcement of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will issue notices
to the maritime community to further publicize the safety zone and
notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices
will continue until the event is complete.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of
Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under those Orders.
    Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the
effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) The
safety zone will only be in effect from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on
July 2, 2015, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and
(iii) although the safety zone will apply to certain portions of the
Inner Harbor, smaller vessel traffic will be able to transit safely
around the safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect
the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners
or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or
within, or anchor in, the safety zone during the enforcement period.
This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons provided
under Regulatory Planning and Review.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves establishing a temporary safety zone for a fireworks display.
The fireworks are launched from navigable waters of the United States
and may negatively impact the safety or other interests of waterway
users and near shore activities in the event area. The activity
includes fireworks launched

from barges near the shoreline that generally rely on the use of
navigable waters as a safety buffer to protect the public from
fireworks fallouts and premature detonations. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0315 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0315  Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River,
Inner Harbor; Baltimore, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Patapsco River, within a 300 yards radius of a fireworks discharge
barge in approximate position latitude 39[deg]16'56'' N, longitude
076[deg]36'19'' W, located in the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, Maryland.
All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. All
vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented
are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative and proceed as directed while within the
zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015.

    Dated: April 28, 2015.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2015-11190 Filed 5-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P