[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16396-16397]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0086; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Revocation of
Class E Airspace; Brooksville, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Brooksville-Tampa
Bay Regional Airport, (previously Hernando County Airport),
Brooksville, FL, by recognizing the airport's name change and updating
the airport's geographic coordinates. Also, Class E surface airspace is
removed as it is no longer necessary. Controlled airspace is necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at this airport. This action also replaces the outdated term
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal
descriptions of associated Class D airspace of this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 20, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface, and removes Class E surface airspace at
Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, (previously Hernando County
Airport), Brooksville, FL, to support standard instrument approach
procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 6987, March 1, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0086 to
amend Class D and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface by recognizing the airport's name change to Brooksville-
Tampa Bay Regional Airport, (formerly Hernando County Airport), and
updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert
with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, Class E surface airspace
would be removed, providing the controlled airspace required to support
the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at this airport.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by

submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002, and 6005 respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August
13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class D and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface by recognizing the airport's name change to
Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, (formerly Hernando County
Airport), and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to be
in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, Class E surface
airspace is removed, providing the controlled airspace required to
support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for
IFR operations at this airport. Additionally, an editorial change is
made replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the
term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D airspace legal
description of this airport. These changes are necessary for continued
safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018,
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Brooksville, FL [Amended]

Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]28'25'' N, long. 82[deg]27'20'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and
including 1,500 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of the
Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area
is effective during specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL E2 Brooksville, FL [Remove]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Brooksville, FL [Amended]

Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]28'25'' N, long. 82[deg]27'20

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.6-mile radius of Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 11, 2019.
Matthew Cathcart,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2019-07834 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18978-18980]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2088-068]

South Feather Water and Power Agency; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study
Requests, and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a
Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

April 9, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric Application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-2088-068.
    c. Date Filed: March 26, 2007.
    d. Applicant: South Feather Water and Power Agency.
    e. Name of Project: South Feather Power Project.
    f. Location: On the South Fork Feather River (SFFR), Lost Creek and
Slate Creek in Butte, Yuba and Plumas counties, California. The project
affects 1,977.12 acres of federal lands administered by the Plumas
National Forest and 10.57 acres of federal land administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Michael Glaze, General Manager, South Feather
Water and Power Agency, 2310 Oro-Quincy Highway, Oroville, CA 95966,
(530) 533-4578
    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, State, local, and
tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect
to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing such requests
described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the
Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of
the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ] 61,076
(2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing requests for cooperating agency status and
additional study requests: May 25, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency
status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    m. This application has not been accepted for filing and is not
ready for environmental analysis. We are not soliciting motions to
intervene, protests, or final terms and conditions at this time.
    n. The South Feather Power Project is a water supply/power project
constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s. The Project is composed of
four developments: Sly Creek, Woodleaf, Forbestown and Kelly Ridge,
each of which is described below. The Project can store about 172,000
acre-feet (af) of water (gross storage) and has generated an average of
about 514.1 gigawatt hours (gWh) of power annually for the past 20
years, since the addition of Sly Creek Powerhouse.
    The Sly Creek Development includes: (1) Little Grass Valley Dam--a
210-foot-high, 840-foot-long, rock filled dam on the SFFR with a crest
elevation of 5,052 feet (all elevations are in National Geodetic
Vertical Datum, or NGVD, unless otherwise specified) and with a 180-
foot-long spillway controlled by two 14-feet-high by 40-feet-long steel
radial gates that forms a 89,804 acre-foot (af) storage reservoir
covering 1,650 acres at a maximum water surface (flood level) elevation
of 5,047 feet with the spill gates closed; (2) South Fork Diversion
Dam--a 60-foot-high, 167-foot-long, concrete overflow arch dam on the
SFFR with a crest elevation of 3,557 to 3,559 feet and with four
uncontrolled overflow spillway sections that forms an 87 af diversion
impoundment covering about 9 acres at a normal maximum water surface
elevation of 3,557 feet; (3) South Fork Diversion Tunnel--a 14,256-
foot-long, 11-foot-diameter concrete lined and unlined horseshoe un-
pressurized tunnel controlled by two 6-foot-high by 4-foot-long
electric hoist slide gates that diverts up to 600 cubic feet per second
(cfs) of water from the South Fork Diversion Dam to Sly Creek
Reservoir; (4) Slate Creek Diversion Dam--a 62-foot-high, 223.5-foot-
long, concrete overflow arch dam on Slate Creek with a crest elevation
of 3,552 to 3,554 feet and with three uncontrolled overflow spillway
sections that forms a negligible diversion impoundment due to sediment
accumulation; (5) Slate Creek Diversion Tunnel--a 13,200-foot-long, 11-
foot-diameter, concrete lined and unlined horseshoe un-pressurized
tunnel controlled by two 8-foot-high by 6-foot-long manual slide gates
that diverts up to a maximum flow capacity of 848 cfs of water (though
water rights limit flows to 600 cfs and at times flows are limited to
500 cfs due to high storage volume in the receiving reservoir) from the
Slate Creek Diversion Dam to Sly Creek Reservoir; (6) Sly Creek Dam--a
289-foot-high, 1,200-foot-long, zoned earth-filled dam on Lost Creek
with a crest elevation of 3,536 feet and with a 649-foot-long spillway
controlled by one 16-foot-high by 54-foot-long steel radial gate that
forms a 64,338 af storage reservoir covering 619 acres at a maximum
water surface (flood level) elevation of 3,531 feet with the spill
gates closed; (7) Sly Creek Penstock--a 1,100-foot-long, 90-inch-
inside-diameter, steel penstock enclosed in the

former outlet tunnel that delivers water to Sly Creek Powerhouse; (8)
Sly Creek Powerhouse--a semi-outdoor, reinforced concrete, above ground
powerhouse that releases water to Lost Creek Reservoir and that
contains one reaction turbine rated at 17,690 horsepower (hp) directly
connected to a 13,500-kilovolt-amperes (kVA) generator; (9) Sly Creek
Powerhouse Switchyard--a switchyard adjacent to the Sly Creek
Powerhouse that contains one 16,000 kVA transformer. Power generated at
Sly Creek Powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard to the grid via
Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 115 kilovolt (kV) Sly Creek Tap and
Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction transmission line; (10) Little Grass Valley
Reservoir Recreation Facility--the Little Grass Valley Reservoir
Recreation Facility includes Little Beaver, Red Feather, Running Deer,
Horse Camp, Wyandotte, Peninsula Tent, Black Rock Tent, Black Rock RV,
and Tooms RV campgrounds; Black Rock, Tooms and Maidu Boat Launch
areas; Pancake Beach and Blue Water Beach day use areas, Maidu
Amphitheater and Little Grass Valley Dam ADA Accessible Fishing trail
at Little Grass Valley Reservoir; and (11) Sly Creek Reservoir
Recreation Facility--the Sly Creek Recreation Facility includes two
campgrounds (Strawberry and Sly Creek), Strawberry Car-Top Boat Launch,
Mooreville Boat Ramp and Mooreville Day Use Area on Sly Creek
Reservoir. The Sly Creek Development does not include any roads except
for the portions of the roads within the FERC Project Boundary that
cross Little Grass Valley Dam (USFS Road 22N94) and Sly Creek Dam (USFS
Road 21N16).
    The Woodleaf Development includes: (1) Lost Creek Dam--a 122-foot-
high, 486-foot-long, concrete overflow arch dam on the Lost Creek with
a crest elevation of 3,279.05 feet and with a 251-foot-wide spillway
controlled by 4-foot-high by 8-foot-long flashboards that forms a 5,361
af storage reservoir covering 137 acres at a normal maximum water
surface elevation of 3,283 feet with the flashboards installed; (2)
Woodleaf Power Tunnel--an 18,385-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter, concrete
lined and unlined horseshoe pressurized tunnel controlled by one 6-
foot-high by 12-foot-long electric hoist slide gate that diverts up to
620 cfs of water from Lost Creek Reservoir to the Woodleaf Penstock;
(3) Woodleaf Penstock--a 3,519-foot-long, 97-inch reducing to 78-inch-
inside-diameter, exposed steel penstock that delivers water to Woodleaf
Powerhouse; (4) Woodleaf Powerhouse--a semi-outdoor, reinforced
concrete, above ground powerhouse that releases water to the Forbestown
Diversion Dam impoundment on the SFFR and that contains one 6-jet
vertical shaft impulse Pelton turbine rated at 80,000 hp directly
connected to a 65,500 kVA generator; and (5) Woodleaf Powerhouse
Switchyard--a switchyard adjacent to the Woodleaf Powerhouse that
contains one 70,000 kVA transformer. Power generated at Woodleaf
Powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard to the grid via Pacific Gas
and Electric Company's 115 kV Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction transmission
line. The Woodleaf Development does not include any recreation
facilities or roads.
    The Forbestown Development includes: (1) Forbestown Diversion Dam--
a 80-foot-high, 256-foot-long, concrete overflow arch dam on the SFFR
with a crest elevation of 1,783 feet and with five 46-foot-wide
uncontrolled overflow spillway sections with a combined width of
approximately 240 feet that forms a 352 af diversion impoundment
covering about 12 acres at a normal maximum water surface elevation of
1,783 feet; (2) Forbestown Power Tunnel--a 18,388-foot-long, 12.5-foot
by 11-foot-diameter, concrete lined and unlined horseshoe pressurized
tunnel that diverts up to 660 cfs of water from the Forbestown
Diversion impoundment to the Forbestown Penstock; (3) Forbestown
Penstock--a 1,487-foot-long, 97-inch reducing to 83-inch-inside-
diameter exposed steel penstock that delivers water to Forbestown
Powerhouse; (4) Forbestown Powerhouse--a semi-outdoor reinforced
concrete above ground powerhouse that releases water to Ponderosa
Reservoir on the SFFR and that contains one vertical reaction Francis
turbine rated at 54,500 hp directly connected to a 40,500 kVA
generator; and (5) Forbestown Powerhouse Switchyard--a switchyard
adjacent to the Forbestown Powerhouse that contains one 35,200 kVA
transformer. Power generated at Forbestown Powerhouse is delivered from
the switchyard to the grid via Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 115
kV Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction transmission line. The Forbestown
Development does not include any recreation facilities or roads.
    The Kelly Ridge Development includes: (1) Ponderosa Dam--a 160-
foot-high, 650-foot-long, earth-filled dam that releases water into the
3.6 million af Lake Oroville (part of the California Department of
Water Resources' Feather River Project, FERC Project No. 2100) with a
crest elevation of 985 feet and with a 352-foot-long spillway
controlled by two 7 foot 7.5-inch-high by 51 feet-long steel gates that
forms a 4,178 af storage reservoir covering 103 acres at a normal
maximum water surface elevation of 960 feet; (2) Ponderosa Diversion
Tunnel--a 516-foot-long, 10-foot by 9-foot-diameter concrete lined and
unlined horseshoe unpressurized tunnel controlled by one 6-foot-high by
8-foot-long hydraulic gate that diverts up to 300 cfs of water from
Ponderosa Reservoir to Miners Ranch Conduit; (3) Miners Ranch Conduit--
a 32,254-foot-long, 10-foot-wide concrete or gunite-lined canal and
concrete or bench flume that includes two siphon sections across the
McCabe and Powell creek sections of Lake Oroville and that diverts
water from the Ponderosa Diversion Tunnel to the Miners Ranch Tunnel;
(4) Miners Ranch Tunnel--a 23,946-foot-long, 10-foot by 9-foot-
diameter, concrete lined horseshoe un-pressurized tunnel that diverts
up to 300 cfs of water from the Miners Ranch Conduit to Miners Ranch
Reservoir; (5) Miners Ranch Dam--a 55-foot-high, 1,650-foot-long,
earth-filled off-stream dam with a crest elevation of 895 feet and with
an 1,175-foot-long uncontrolled spillway that forms a 896 af storage
reservoir covering 48 acres at a normal maximum water surface elevation
of 890 feet; (6) Kelly Ridge Power Tunnel--a 6,736-foot-long, 9-foot by
8-foot-diameter, pressurized tunnel controlled by one 4-foot-high by 8-
foot-long fixed wheel gate that diverts up to 260 cfs of water from
Miners Ranch Reservoir to Kelly Ridge Penstock: (7) Kelly Ridge
Penstock--a 6,064-foot-long 69-inch reducing to 57-inch-inside-
diameter, exposed steel penstock that delivers water to Kelly Ridge
Powerhouse; (8) Kelly Ridge Powerhouse--a semi-outdoor reinforced
concrete above ground powerhouse that releases water to CDWR Feather
River Project's Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream of Oroville Dam
and that contains one vertical reaction Francis turbine rated at 13,000
hp directly connected to a 11,000 kVA generator; and (5) Kelly Ridge
Powerhouse Switchyard--a switchyard adjacent to the Kelly Ridge
Powerhouse that contains one 11,000 kVA transformer. Power generated at
the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse is delivered from the switchyard to the grid
via Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 60 kV Kelly Ridge-Elgin Junction
transmission line. The Kelly Ridge Development does not include any
recreation facilities or roads.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission

in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
Sec.  106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at Sec.  800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter: May 2007.
    Request Additional Information: May 2007,
    Issue Scoping Document: June 2007.
    Hold Scoping Meetings/Site Visit: June 2007.
    Issue Scoping Document 2: July 2007.
    Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis:
August 2007.
    Notice of the availability of the draft NEPA document: February
2008.
    Initiate 10(j) process: April 2008.
    Notice of the availability of the final NEPA document: August
2008.

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7148 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48736-48737]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0412]

Revocation of Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro
Diagnostic Device for Detection and/or Diagnosis of COVID-19;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
revocation of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization)
issued to Curative Inc. for the Curative SARS-Cov-2 Assay. FDA revoked
the Authorization on July 15, 2021, under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as requested by Curative Inc. on June 16,
2021. The revocation, which includes an explanation of the reasons for
the revocation, is reprinted in this document.

DATES: The Authorization for the Curative SARS-Cov-2 Assay is revoked
as of July 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for a single copy of the revocation
to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which
the revocation may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for electronic access to the revocation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer J. Ross, Office of
Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002,<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to
strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical,
nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of
the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical
product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain
situations. On April 16, 2020, FDA issued the Authorization to Curative
Inc. (original issuance to KorvaLabs, Inc. under the name Curative-
Korva SARS-Cov-2 Assay). Notice of the issuance of the Authorization
was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2020 (85 FR 42407),
as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act. The authorization of
a device for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act may,
pursuant to section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act, be revoked when
circumstances make such revocation appropriate to protect the public
health or safety.

II. EUA Revocation Request of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device

    On June 16, 2021, Curative Inc. requested the revocation of, and on
July 15, 2021, FDA revoked, the Authorization for the Curative SARS-
Cov-2 Assay. Because Curative Inc. notified FDA that it will no longer
be using the Curative SARS-Cov-2 Assay as of July 15, 2021, and
requested FDA revoke the authorization effective that day, FDA has
determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or
safety to revoke this Authorization.

III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the
revocations are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov/ and https://www.fda.gov/media/150773/download.

IV. The Revocation

    Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the
Authorization under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA
has revoked the EUA for the Curative SARS-Cov-2 Assay. The revocation
in its entirety follows and provides an explanation of the reasons for
revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31AU21.042

    Dated: August 26, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-18789 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9463-9464]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5
U.S.C. 552b:

TIME AND DATE: February 20, 2014, 10 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: OPEN.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                                 1002nd--MEETING
                                [Regular meeting, February 20, 2014, 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                     Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................  AD02-1-000......................  Agency Business Matters.
A-2.....................  AD02-7-000......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                             Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................  RM11-24-001, AD10-13-001........  Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services;
                                                             Accounting and Financial Reporting for Electric
                                                             Storage Technologies.
E-2.....................  PL14-1-000......................  Payment of Dividends from Funds Included in Capital
                                                             Accounts.
E-3.....................  ER14-623-000....................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-4.....................  ER14-552-000....................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-5.....................  ER12-2292-004...................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-6.....................  OMITTED.........................
E-7.....................  ER14-7-000......................  Ohio Power Company.
E-8.....................  EL08-14-010.....................  Black Oak Energy, L.L.C., EPIC Merchant Energy, L.P.
                                                             and SESCO Enterprises, L.L.C. v. PJM
                                                             Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-9.....................  EL12-12-000.....................  Allco Renewable Energy Limited v. Massachusetts
                                                             Electric Company.
E-10....................  EL12-104-001....................  Interstate Power and Light Company v. ITC Midwest,
                                                             LLC.
                          ER13-2156-000...................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-11....................  EL14-15-000.....................  Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena,
                                                             and Riverside, California v. Trans Bay Cable L.L.C.
                          ER13-2412-001, ER13-2412-000      Trans Bay Cable L.L.C.
                           (consolidated).
E-12....................  ER12-2681-000...................  ITC Holdings Corp.
                          ER12-2681-001...................  Entergy Corporation.
                          ER12-2681-002...................  Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
                                                             Inc.
                          ER13-948-001....................  Entergy Services, Inc.
                          ER13-782-000....................  ITC Arkansas LLC.
                          ER13-782-001 (consolidated).....  ITC Texas LLC, ITC Louisiana LLC, ITC Mississippi
                                                             LLC.
                          ER12-2683-001...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
                          ER12-2682-000, ER12-2682-001,     Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
                           ER12-2682-002 (not
                           consolidated).
E-13....................  ER12-2693-001...................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States
                                                             Louisiana L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
                                                             Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc.,
                                                             Entergy Texas, Inc.

E-14....................  ER12-1179-008, ER12-1179-009,     Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
                           ER12-1179-011, ER13-1173-001.
=========================
                                                       Gas
================================================================================================================
G-1.....................  RP13-431-001, RP13-431-002......  Dominion Transmission, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................  P-3633-040, CD14-9-001..........  KC Brighton LLC.
H-2.....................  P-2114-209......................  Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County,
                                                             Washington.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................  CP13-8-001......................  Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
C-2.....................  CP14-12-000.....................  Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued February 12, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2014-03653 Filed 2-14-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


MEMORANDUM

TO: 		EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505

FROM: 	Korbin Smith, Physical Scientist
      U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

DATE: 	October 13, 2020

SUBJECT: Development of the RTR Proposal Risk Modeling Dataset for the Carbon Black Production Source Category.

1.0 PURPOSE
      This memorandum presents our analyses related to both the development of the MACT-allowable emissions levels used to assess risk as well as the derivation of the hourly emissions rates used to estimate acute risk from the carbon black manufacturing source category. These analyses are being done in order to inform and satisfy EPA's statutory obligations under section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act.

2.0 FACILITIES, EMISSION PROCESS GROUPS, AND CATEGORY-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS

A.	Facilities Modeled

      Carbon black production facilities included as part of the source category are facilities that produce carbon black via any of the three processes: furnace black, thermal black, or acetylene decomposition. Upon review, 15 identified carbon black production major source facilities are owned by 5 companies across 6 states, with facilities being primarily located in Texas and Louisiana, but also located in Kansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Ohio For more information on the major sources of carbon black production please see the memo, "Carbon Black Major Source Memo," which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. 	Emission Process Groups
      Emissions data was received from the 2016 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Emissions were categorized into process groups by using source classification codes (SCCs) and unit descriptions. Process groups include combustion device, process filter, fugitive emissions, purge filter, and storage tank.  The process groups are used to understand the relative contribution of each type of process to the overall risk results after modeling is complete.
C.	Speciation Profile
      Mercury emissions were speciated using the profile 50/40/10 for Elemental, Gaseous, Particulate Mercury.
2.0 MACT-ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
      Available emissions data that form the basis of the inputs to the risk modeling file dataset are estimates of the mass of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted during a specified annual time period. These emissions are commonly referred to as actual emissions, and in some cases these actual emissions levels can be less than the emissions limitations in a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard. The emissions level allowed to be emitted by a MACT standard (e.g., the MACT "floor") is more commonly referred to as the MACT-allowable emissions level for purposes of residual risk review.
      The basic approach used to estimate MACT-Allowable emissions for the carbon black source category was to, first, start with the available emissions data estimates representing actual emissions and assess whether these data were reasonable estimates of the levels allowed by the MACT standards for emissions sources regulated by the national emission standards for hazardous for air pollutants (NESHAP) for carbon black manufacturing (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY). Table 1 summarizes the formats of the MACT standards for the emissions sources addressed in the NESHAP for carbon black.

       Table 1. Formats of MACT Standards for the NESHAP for Ethylene Production

 Emissions Source
 Format of Primary Standard
 Main Unit Filter Process Vents
 Performance Standard or Concentration Limit
 Equipment Leaks
 Work Practice Standards
 Other Process Vents
 N/A

      The ability to estimate MACT-allowable emissions from the actual emissions dataset is largely dependent on the format of the standard for a given emissions source as well as types of controls employed by the source. With respect to the various types of controls used within the carbon black source category, none is more prevalent than the use of a combination of combustion control devices (CCD's). Facilities that manufacture carbon black typically have several types of CCD's including but not limited to, flares, incinerators, boilers, and dryers. The CCD's can be used to control emissions for a single emissions source, or as is generally the case, to control emissions from multiple emission sources/emission source types.
      CCD's are designed to handle a large range of variable flowrates and compositions of combustible waste gases and, within the carbon black source category, generally control emissions from multiple emission source types. Consideration of this, along with not having a specific limit on how much gas can be combusted in a CCD (given that in many cases multiple emissions sources are being controlled by this control device), makes it extremely difficult to determine an allowable emission rate.
      Historically, the majority of facilities in the carbon black source category utilized flares to control emissions.  Emissions inventories for flares in the carbon black source category are developed using engineering knowledge and, in many instances, presume this 98 percent level of control (e.g., see as an example Technical Supplement 4: Flares in "2016 Emissions Inventory Guidelines," (TCEQ. 2017)), and the agency is unaware of any data that suggests that CCD's in the carbon black source category are consistently over-controlling HAP emissions beyond 98 percent.
      For purposes of the MACT-allowable risk analysis, we evaluate whether it is necessary to tighten the existing MACT standard. Thus, weighing all of these factors for combustion devices, we believe that the actual emission levels are a reasonable estimation of the MACT-allowable emissions levels where the performance standards allow the use of a flare or to reduce emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-percent.
      For equipment leaks, which are subject to work practice standards, there would be no difference between actual and MACT-allowable emissions for facilities in the carbon black source category, provided the facilities are in compliance with the NESHAP as well as not conducting additional work practices proven to reduce emissions beyond those required in the rule. Therefore, weighing these factors for equipment leaks, we believe that the actual emission levels are a reasonable estimation of the MACT-allowable emissions levels allowed by the standard for the source category.

3.0 ACUTE RISK EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
      To develop estimates of acute exposures in risk and technology review (RTR) rulemakings, the agency generally assumes the 1-hr emissions rate for any emission point could be 10 times higher than its average hourly emissions (calculated by dividing the actual emissions by 8760 hours per year) in situations where the EPA lacks sufficient information on hourly emissions for given emissions sources. The basis for this assumption was derived from an analysis of short term release information collected from a Texas study of facilities in a four-county area (Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) which were then compared against routine emissions rates for an entire facility. The conclusions for this analysis were that hourly emissions from any single release event to the average annual volatile organic compound (VOC) release rate for an entire facility were seldom greater than a factor of 10.

A.	Approach to Derivation of Hourly Emissions Rates

      For the carbon black source category, a number of specific factors can be considered with respect to certain emissions sources in the source category to help fine tune and derive a conservative hourly emissions rate multiplier to assess acute risk rather than use a default factor of 10. These specific factors include, but are not limited to: process knowledge, the modes of operation (e.g., continuous, batch, intermittent, etc.) of certain unit operations and their connection to emissions, and other specific factors that would affect variability in hourly emissions from a given emissions source (e.g., meteorological conditions for storage vessels). Thus, in some cases, a factor of 10 may overestimate emissions while in others it may underestimate emissions for the upper range of expected variability for certain emissions sources. As such, consideration of these relevant factors, if known, should be applied to more accurately assess acute risk.

3.1 Acute Risk Factors for the Carbon Black Source Category

Based on the approach described in section 3.1, we determined that the acute risk multipliers identified in Table 2 should be used in lieu of assigning a default factor of 10 to estimate hourly emissions and assess acute risks for each emissions source in the carbon black source category. The reasoning for changing the acute multiplier from the default (if it was changed) is also described in Table 2.
Table 2 - Summary of Acute Risk Multipliers Developed to Assess Acute Risks for the Carbon Black Source Category
Emissions Source
Acute Multiplier
Reasoning for Acute Multiplier
Main Unit Filter Process Vents and Other Process Vents (Furnace Black)
2
For process vents using the furnace black production process, these vent streams would be associated with continuous operations and essentially be steady state. Typical source variability would be minimal given their continuous nature. It us Thus, an hourly multiplier of 2 is applied for this emissions source.
Equipment Leaks
2
For fugitives from equipment leaks, we note that the current methods of estimating emissions make use of correlation equations in conjunction with EPA Method 21 readings that ultimately provide an hourly emission rate for the monitoring period in question. The actual emission rates estimated based on the direct EPA Method 21 readings are commonly divided by two to estimate the average emission rate between monitoring intervals (i.e., assuming the leak started mid-way between monitoring intervals as described in the emissions protocol). We expect the emission estimates from the direct EPA Method 21 readings to provide a direct measure of the maximum hourly emissions (as leak repair will be applied to reduce hourly emissions immediately after a monitoring cycle). Therefore, we applied an hourly multiplier of 2 to estimate maximum hourly rates from the annual average emission rates for this emissions source.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29056-29059]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0549; Product Identifier 2018-NM-014-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed
AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2018.

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 Dassault
Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South
Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

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-2018-
0549; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2018-0549;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-014-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0009, dated January 15, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-
FALCON 200 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon
200 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined
and published in AMM [aircraft maintenance manual] ALS
[airworthiness limitations section] Chapter 5-40. These instructions
have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    EASA previously issued AD 2008-0221 (later corrected), requiring
the actions described in Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon 200 AMM
Chapter 5-40 (DMD 18740A) at Revision 14. Since that [EASA] AD was
issued, Dassault published the ALS, containing new and/or more
restrictive maintenance tasks.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD takes over the
requirements for Myst[egrave]re Falcon 200 aeroplanes from EASA AD
2008-0221 and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in
the ALS.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0549.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual,
Airworthiness Limitations, Chapter 5-40-00, Revision 17, dated December
20, 2017. The service information describes mandatory maintenance tasks
that operators must perform at specified intervals. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with
these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed
by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the
actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with
14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative
method of compliance according to paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD.
The request should include a description of changes to the required
actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected
structure.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective
actions must be accomplished in accordance with Dassault maintenance
documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that
requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by
general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform
maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider
those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this
proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-

airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

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):

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0549; Product Identifier
2018-NM-014-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 6, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON
200 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking,
damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue
cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Chapter 5-
40-00, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017. The initial compliance
time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time
specified in Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness
Limitations, Chapter 5-40-00, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017;
or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD; whichever
occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, The
Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (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, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0009, dated January 15, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0549.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13333 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 765]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF84-377-013]

Notice of Compliance Filing; Colstrip Energy Limited Partnership

December 29, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 15, 2006, Colstrip Energy Limited
Partnership (Colstrip) submitted a filing in compliance with the
Commission's December 5, 2006 Order. Colstrip seeks an order stating
that the condition in the December 5 Order has been satisfied and that
recertification is granted.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 11, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22689 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5699-5700]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

January 30, 2007.
    a. Type of Application: Application for Non-Project Use of Project
Lands and Waters.
    b. Project Number: P-2686-054.
    c. Date Filed: January 16, 2007.

    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Westfork Hydroelectric Project No. 2686.
    f. Location: The project is located on the West Fork of the
Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kelvin K. Reagan, Senior Lake Services
Representative, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte,
NC 28201, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Chris Yeakel at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: March 2, 2007.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC proposes to
grant a lease of 0.55 acres of project lands for non-project use as a
private marina to provide access to Lake Glenville for residents of the
Point Glenville Lake subdivision. The marina will consist of a cluster
dock with 10 boat docking locations and will be constructed of Ipewood
decking, a metal frame and encapsulated Styrofoam for floatation. The
project will include 294.28 feet of shoreline stabilization utilizing
dry-stack stone and rip-rap.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2686) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-2686-054). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1913 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Page 1 of 3 Memorandum From: Lynn Zipf USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 566 1429 zipf. lynn@ epa. gov To: MP& M Record Date: February 10, 2003 Re: Fish Consumption This memo describes EPA's decisions regarding fish consumption and BCF/ BAF for the benefits analysis associated with the final rule.

FISH CONSUMPTION RATES Fresh Water and Estuarine Fish Consumption Rates for Sport fishers and Subsistence fishers:

" New studies have addressed water consumption and fish tissue consumption. These studies provide a more current and comprehensive description of national, regional and specialpopulation consumption patterns that EPA has reflected in the 2000 Human Health Methodology." ( U. S. EPA 2000)

OW has determined that the fish consumption rate of 142.4 g/ day for subsistence fishers falls within the range of the arithmetic mean of subsistence fisher studies representative of the United States.( U. S. EPA, 1998, Section 2.3). It represents the average consumption rate for this population of fishers. 142.4g/ day represents uncooked, fresh and estuarine finfish and shellfish. The reason it is reported on an uncooked basis is that pollutant concentration data are reported on an uncooked weight basis. The two key studies in the EFH ( 1997), CRITFC ( 1994) and Wolfe and Walker ( 1987) were reviewed in the process of development of national rates as well as 10 other studies. The other studies represent subsistence fishers from the Great Lakes, Idaho, American Samoan, Wisconsin Chippewa Indians, Miccousukee Indians, Wisconsin tribes, tribes from Puget Sound, Native Americans near Clear Lake, California, Hawaiian Islands, and Alaska Natives ( U. S. EPA, 1998).

The fish consumption rate of 17.5g/ day falls within the average consumption rate for sports fishers. 17.5g/ day represents uncooked, fresh and estuarine finfish and shellfish. Four of the five key studies in the EFH ( 1997) were reviewed in the development of the national rate as well as 17 other studies. The other studies represent sports fishers from Alabama, California, Louisiana, Page 2 of 3 Wisconsin, Ontario, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Savannah and Florida. ( U. S. EPA 1998). The fifth study, Connelly ( 1992) has since been included and found to support the 17.5g/ day fish consumption rate.

Both these values, 142.4 g/ day and 17.5g/ day, are being used for the specific subpopulation which they represent. We were not able to break them down by gender or age group for the use in our analysis.

The draft TSD ( USEPA 1998) from which the above fish consumption rates have been excerpted has undergone peer review in accordance with EPA's Peer Review Handbook. The peer review process was initiated in April 1999 with 15 technical experts ( reviewers) participating ( U. S. EPA. 1999). Offices within EPA, including ORD, participated in the EPA workgroup that reviewed and commented on the draft TSD.

Fish Consumption rates for children under 18 of sport and subsistence fishers:

To calculate the consumption rate for sport fisher children, West ( 1989) in the Exposure Factors Handbook ( USEPA 1997) had the most specific data. West et. al. cited an intake of 7.27g/ day of fresh water and estuarine fish for children of sport anglers. We took that consumption rate of 7.27 g/ day and extrapolated to subsistence fisher children, using the proportional relationship between adult sport and subsistence fishers ( 17.5g/ day divided by 142.4 g/ day). The rate for subsistence children is calculated to be 60.58 g/ day.

Fish Consumption rates for for children between ages 1 7 of sport and subsistence fishers:

For sport fisher children, we calculated a weighted consumption average of 6.03 g/ day. This is based on the West et. al. data ( USEPA 1997) for children ages 1 5 ( 5.63 g/ day) and children ages 6 10 ( 7.94 g/ day). For the children of subsistence fishers, we used the 1994 CRTFIC data of 19.6 g/ day for children under age 5 and the data from the Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the US document ( USEPA 2002) for the children who ate fish for ages 3 5 ( 40.31 g/ day) and ages 6 10 ( 61.49 g/ day) to calculate a weighted average consumption rate of 30.33 g/ day.

Marine Fish Consumption Rates for Sport fishers, Subsistence fishers and their children:

The data for marine fish consumption rates for sport fishers and subsistence fishers is not readily available. Given the time constraints as well as the few number of marine reaches affected by the MP& M effluent guideline, we decided to use the fresh and estuarine fish consumption rates in lieu of marine fish consumption rates. This may result in underestimating the benefits, but some would argue that few subsistence fishers eat fresh/ estuarine fish and marine fish at the same rate.

BCFs/ BAFs Page 3 of 3 We decided to continue using bioconcentration factors recognizing that they will underestimate the risk. Field measured BAFs are not yet available, and using a food chain multiplier model leaves us too vulnerable at this late date so therefore we have not used the BAF in this effluent guideline.

References:

Connelly, N. A.; Knuth, B. A.; Bisogni, C. A. ( 1992) Effect of health advisory and advisory changes on fishing habits and fish consumption in New York sport fisheries. Human Dimension Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission ( CRITFC) 1994. A Fish consumption survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama. and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin. Portland, OR: CRITFC. Technical Report 94 3.

USEPA 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Volumes I, II, and III. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. ( EPA/ 600/ P 95/ 002Fa, b, c) August.

USEPA 1998. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology: Human Health. Technical Support Document ( EPA/ 822/ B 98/ 005) July.

USEPA 1999. Summary Report from the Peer Review Workshop ( EPA/ 822/ R 99/ 015) September.