[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25360-25363]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5597; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-009-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of cracks in the upper chord of the overwing stub
beams at body station (STA) 578 emanating from the rivet location
common to the crease beam inner chord and the overwing stub beam upper
chord. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for
cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. Replacement of the overwing stub beam would terminate the
repetitive inspections for cracking at the replacement location only,
and post-replacement inspections would be required if the replacement
was done. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in
the upper chord of the overwing stub beam caused by high flight cycle
fatigue stresses from both pressurization and maneuver loads. Cracking
of the overwing stub beam could adversely affect the fuselage
structural integrity and result in possible decompression of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5597.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5597; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wade Sullivan, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6430; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-5597;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-009-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 have received ten reports from four operators of cracks in the
upper chord of the overwing stub beams at body STA 578 emanating from
the rivet location common to the crease beam inner chord and the
overwing stub beam upper chord on The Boeing Company Model 737-400
series airplanes. The earliest reported crack in an overwing stub beam
upper chord occurred on an airplane with 31,843 total flight cycles.
Seven airplanes had a severed overwing stub beam upper chord on either
the left or right side, and two airplanes had severed overwing stub
beam upper chords on the left and right sides. Cracks in the upper
chord of the overwing stub beams, if not corrected, could result in
high flight cycle fatigue stresses from both pressurization and
maneuver loads, which can cause cracking in the upper chord of the
overwing stub beam at STA 559, STA 578, and STA 601. Cracking of the
overwing stub beam could adversely affect the fuselage structural
integrity and result in possible decompression of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated
December 9, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
doing a surface high frequency eddy current inspection

for cracking in the overwing stub beam upper chord at STA 559, STA 578,
and STA 601, and repairs and replacement. 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.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5597.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate
the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an
AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' correct or address any condition found.
Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair
certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those
conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 93 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
          Action                   Labor cost           Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...............  24 work-hours x $85 per                $0  $2,040 per            $189,720 per
                            hour = $2,040 per                          inspection cycle.     inspection cycle
                            inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                    Labor cost               Parts cost                Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related investigative inspection.  9 work-hours x $85   $0.........................  $765 per side.
                                    per hour = $765
                                    per side.
STA 578 Replacement..............  41 work-hours x $85  $41,500 per side...........  $44,985 per side.
                                    per hour=$3,485
                                    per side.
STA 578 Post[dash]replacement      1 work-hour x $85    $0.........................  $85 per side.
 inspection.                        per hour = $85 per
                                    side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for certain on-condition actions specified in this
proposed AD.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-5597; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-009-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 13, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Boeing Company Model 737-400 series
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the upper chord of
the overwing stub beams at body station (STA) 578 emanating from the
rivet location common to the crease beam inner chord and the
overwing stub beam upper chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in the upper chord of the overwing stub beam caused
by high flight cycle fatigue stresses from both pressurization and
maneuver loads. Cracking of the overwing stub beam could adversely
affect the fuselage structural integrity and result in possible
decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in table 1 in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated
December 9, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2)
of this AD: Do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for any cracking in the overwing stub beam upper chord at
STA 559, STA 578, and STA 601; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, except as specified in paragraph
(j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the HFEC inspection
thereafter at the applicable intervals specified Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Deviation from the actions
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated
December 9, 2015, may affect compliance with the fuel tank ignition
prevention requirements specified in Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitation 28-AWL-11 of Document D6-38278-CMR.

(h) Terminating Action

    Replacement of the overwing stub beam in accordance with Part 4
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the STA 578
replacement location only. The post-replacement inspections required
by paragraph (i) of this AD are still required at the STA 578
replacement location.

(i) Post-Replacement Inspections and Corrective Action

    For airplanes on which an overwing stub beam has been replaced
at STA 578: At the applicable time specified in table 2 in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347,
dated December 9, 2015: Do a surface HFEC inspection for any
cracking in the overwing stub beam upper chord at STA 578, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015. Repeat the
HFEC inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j)(3) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated
December 9, 2015, specifies a compliance time after the ``original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015,
refers to airplanes with specified total flight cycles ``at the
original issue date of this service bulletin.'' This AD, however,
applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as
of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated
December 9, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the cracking or replace the
stub beam, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(k) No Economic Inspection Required

    This AD does not require the ``Recommended Economic Inspection''
specified in paragraph 3.B.3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and
(l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wade Sullivan,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You

may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09643 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29770-29771]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0351; FRL-10024-26-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section the Clean Air Act, as amended
(``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is given of a proposed consent decree
in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, No. 4:21-cv-426-JST (N.D.
CA.). On January 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division, alleging that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
failed to perform several mandatory duties under the CAA. On May 10,
2019, the State of California submitted a SIP revision to EPA with two
components titled ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 Standards'' and ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the
2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' (together, the
``SJV PM2.5 Plan'') to address CAA requirements for
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV Area. The SJV
PM2.5 Plan includes measures intended to control emissions
of fine particulate matter and its precursors within the San Joaquin
Valley for purposes of attaining the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposed consent decree would
establish deadlines for EPA to take final actions on the portions of
the SJV PM2.5 Plan that address requirements for the various
PM2.5 NAAQS by specific dates.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by July 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2021-0351, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. 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 ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under 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, 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.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0351) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to
take final

actions pursuant to the CAA. First, the proposed consent decree would
establish a deadline for EPA to take action pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(2)-(4) to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve
in part and disapprove in part the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan contingency measures
element. The proposed consent decree would require EPA to take action
on the SIP submission for this requirement by no later than November
30, 2021.
    Second, the proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for
EPA to take final action pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4) to
approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and
disapprove in part, the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan. The
proposed consent decree would require EPA to take action on the SIP
submission for these requirements by no later than February 28, 2022.
    Third, the proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for
EPA to take final action pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4) to
approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and
disapprove in part, the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan. The proposed consent decree
would require EPA to take action on the SIP submission for these
requirements by no later than April 29, 2022.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-
0351, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov 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. 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. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. 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.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-11692 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61590]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6951-018]

Tallassee Shoals, LLC; Notice of Waiver of Water Quality
Certification

    On September 15, 2021, Tallassee Shoals, LLC. filed an application
for a new license for the Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project
(project) in the above captioned docket. On August 12, 2022, Tallassee
Shoals, LLC. filed with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
a request for water quality certification for the project under section
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
    On September 2, 2022, staff provided the certifying authority with
written notice pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6(b) that the applicable
reasonable period of time for the state to act on the certification
request was one (1) year from the date of receipt of the request, and
that the certification requirement for the license would be waived if
the certifying authority failed to act by August 12, 2023. Because the
state did not act by August 12, 2023, we are notifying you pursuant to
40 CFR 121.9(c), and section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), that waiver of the certification requirement has
occurred.

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19293 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25278-25281]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0279]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; TriMet Bridge Project, Willamette River; Portland,
OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is proposing the establishment of a
safety zone during the construction of the TriMet Bridge on the
Willamette River, in Portland, OR. This action is necessary to ensure
the safety of recreational vessels and commercial vessels transiting in
close proximity to cranes and overhead work associated with this
construction project. During the enforcement period, all vessels will
be required to transit through the area at a no wake speed and at a
safe distance from the work being conducted.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0279 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: 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.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail MST1 Jaime Sayers, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0279), 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 (via 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 via http://www.regulations.gov, 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 e-mail 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,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0279'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. 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.

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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0279'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
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. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

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).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before May 1, 2011 using one of the four 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.

Basis and Purpose

    TriMet and their contractor, Kiewit Infrastructure West, will be
starting construction of the new Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Bridge
on July 1, 2011 (with in-water mobilization beginning in June). The
construction of the bridge will last from July 2011 through October
2014. The project includes the construction of four piers, two on land
and two piers in the water requiring cofferdams. Trestles will be
constructed to complete sections of the project as well as the use of
crane barges that can be affected by vessel wakes. To ensure the safety
of construction crews on the barges, trestles, and cranes involved in
this project TriMet has requested that the Coast Guard place a 1000
foot safety zone around the entire project. This safety zone will
include a 500 foot no wake zone upriver and downriver of the project.
It will also include two exclusionary zones that will require vessels
passing through the area to remain a distance of 100 feet in all
directions away from the work trestles and 140 feet in all directions
away from the cranes. This will ensure that the vessels passing through
the designated areas will not be in a dangerous position under cranes
or too close to the trestles.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The safety zone created by this rule will cover all waters of the
Willamette River encompassed within the following two lines: Line one
starting at latitude 45[deg]30[min]26.21[sec] N longitude
122[deg]39[min]57.53[sec] W on the east bank then across the Willamette
River to latitude 45[deg]30[min]20.77[sec] N longitude
122[deg]40[min]13.04[sec] W on the west bank; line two starting at
latitude 45[deg]30[min]18.14[sec] N longitude 122[deg]39[min]51.77[sec]
W on the east bank then across the Willamette River to latitude
45[deg]30[min]12.02[sec] N longitude 122[deg]40[min]08.44[sec] W on the
west bank.
    Geographically this area is all the waters of the Willamette River
within an area created by a line beginning on the east bank of the
Willamette River at the OMSI facility extending across the river to the
west bank, following the shoreline approximately 1000 feet up river to
the Zidell waterfront area, extending across the river to the property
line for Caruthers Landing, then following the shoreline approximately
1000 feet downriver to the starting point.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

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,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and

Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard has made
this determination based on the fact that this rule doesn't stop all
river traffic. The rule will only limit entry into certain areas of the
river for safety; the other section of the river will be open for
transits at a no wake speed. Users of the river should not be adversely
affected by the closures and delays.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities
some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
wishing to transit the safety zone established by this rule. The rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because parts of the area will still be accessible to
vessels and the vessels will still be able to transit through the
safety zone area with permission.
    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.

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 so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 MST1 Jaime Sayers, Marine Safety
unit Portland at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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.

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.

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.

Protection of Children

    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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves the creation and
enforcement of a safety zone. 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

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

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

Sec.  165.1338  Safety Zone; TriMet Bridge Project, Willamette River;
Portland, OR

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Willamette River encompassed within the following two lines: Line
one starting at latitude 45[deg]30[min]26.21[sec] N longitude
122[deg]39[min]57.53[sec] W on the east bank then across the Willamette
River to latitude 45[deg]30[min]20.77[sec] N longitude
122[deg]40[min]13.04[sec] W on the west bank; line two starting at
latitude 45[deg]30[min]18.14[sec] N longitude 122[deg]39[min]51.77[sec]
W on the east bank then across the Willamette River to latitude
45[deg]30[min]12.02[sec] N longitude 122[deg]40[min]08.44[sec] W on the
west bank.
    Geographically this area is all the waters of the Willamette River
within an area created by a line beginning on the east bank of the
Willamette River at the OMSI facility extending across the river to the
west bank, following the shoreline approximately 1000 feet up river to
the Zidell waterfront area, extending across the river to the property
line for Caruthers Landing, then following the shoreline approximately
1000 feet downriver to the starting point.
    (b) Regulation. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel operator may enter or remain in the
safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port or
Designated Representative. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by
other Federal, State, or local agencies with the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the
safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
Designated Representative by contacting the on-scene patrol craft.
Vessel operators granted permission to enter the zone will be escorted
by the on-scene patrol craft until they are outside of the safety zone.
    (d) Enforcement Period. The safety zone detailed in paragraph (a)
of this section will be in effect from 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2011
through 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2014.

    Dated: April 18, 2011.
D.E. Kaup,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2011-10802 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P