[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35654-35655]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13148]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6940; Notice No. 29-039-SW-SC]

Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model
525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: We propose special conditions for the BHTI Model 525
helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with the electronic CAS. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-6940
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new
transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The aircraft
is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight
is 20,000 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 16 passengers and a crew
of 2.
    BHTI proposes that the Model 525 use a novel and unusual design
feature, which is an electronic CAS. Section 29.1322 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), prescribes discrete colored lights for
warning, caution, and advisory alerts. In this regard, Sec.  29.1322
lacks adequate airworthiness standards for alerting messages and
displays that do not use discrete colored lights, that include non-
visual cues, that provide alerting information to the flightcrew, and
that use integrated and multiple alerts concurrently.
    The Model 525 CAS will have more effective integrated visual,
aural, tactile, and alert messaging that will require special
airworthiness standards, known as special conditions, to address crew
alerting of failures or malfunctions in critical systems. These special
conditions will add requirements from the airworthiness standards in
Sec.  25.1322 (Amendment 25-131) for advanced crew alerting systems in
transport category aircraft.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model
525 meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by
Amendments 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification
basis date is December 15, 2011, the date of application to the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel
or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design features: an advanced CAS system. The novel design
includes the integration of audio and visual alerts, tactical sensors,
and CAS message consolidation. The new technologies associated with
integrated visual, aural, tactile, and alert messaging are more
effective in alerting the flightcrew and aiding them in decision-making
than the discrete colored lights for warning, caution, and advisory
alerts prescribed in Sec.  29.1322 alone.

Discussion

    The current 14 CFR part 29 standards do not provide adequate
standards for the advanced CAS system of the Bell Model 525 helicopter
due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and the modes of the fly
by wire primary flight controls. The proposed special condition will
update definitions, define a prioritization scheme, expand color
requirements, and address performance for flightcrew alerting to
reflect changes in technology and functionality.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters.

Flightcrew Alerting

    (a) Flightcrew alerts must:
    (1) Provide the flightcrew with the information needed to:
    (i) Identify non-normal operation or aircraft system conditions,
and
    (ii) Determine the appropriate actions, if any.
    (2) Be readily and easily detectable and intelligible by the
flightcrew under all foreseeable operating conditions, including
conditions where multiple alerts are provided.
    (3) Be removed when the alerting condition no longer exists.
    (b) Alerts must conform to the following prioritization hierarchy
based on the urgency of flightcrew awareness and response.
    (1) Warning: For conditions that require immediate flightcrew
awareness and immediate flightcrew response.
    (2) Caution: For conditions that require immediate flightcrew
awareness and subsequent flightcrew response.
    (3) Advisory: For conditions that require flightcrew awareness and
may require subsequent flightcrew response.
    (c) Warning and caution alerts must:
    (1) Be prioritized within each category, when necessary.
    (2) Provide timely attention-getting cues through at least two
different senses by a combination of aural, visual, or tactile
indications.
    (3) Permit each occurrence of the attention-getting cues required
by paragraph (c)(2) of these special conditions to be acknowledged and
suppressed, unless they are required to be continuous.
    (d) The alert function must be designed to minimize the effects of
false and nuisance alerts. In particular, it must be designed to:
    (1) Prevent the presentation of an alert that is inappropriate or
unnecessary.
    (2) Provide a means to suppress an attention-getting component of
an alert caused by a failure of the alerting function that interferes
with the flightcrew's ability to safely operate the helicopter. This
means must not be readily available to the flightcrew so that it could
be operated inadvertently or by habitual reflexive action. When an
alert is suppressed, there must be a clear and unmistakable
annunciation to the flightcrew that the alert has been suppressed.
    (e) Visual alert indications must:
    (1) Conform to the following color convention:
    (i) Red for warning alert indications.
    (ii) Amber or yellow for caution alert indications.
    (iii) Any color except red, amber, yellow, or green for advisory
alert indications.
    (2) Use visual coding techniques, together with other alerting
function elements in the cockpit, to distinguish between warning,
caution, and advisory alert indications, if they are presented on
monochromatic displays that are not capable of conforming to the color
convention in paragraph (e)(1) of these special conditions.
    (f) Use of the colors red, amber, and yellow in the cockpit for
functions other than flightcrew alerting must be limited and must not
adversely affect flightcrew alerting.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 24, 2016.
Lance T. Gant
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-13148 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36633-36638]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-030]

Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines

Issued July 16, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
proposing to amend its regulations prescribing standards for interstate
natural gas pipeline business practices and electronic communications
(found at 18 CFR 284.12) to incorporate by reference standards adopted
by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant of the North American Energy Standards
Board (NAESB) for Index-Based Capacity Release and Flexible Delivery
and Receipt Points. These standards can be obtained from NAESB at 1301
Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, TX 77002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://
www.naesb.org, and are available for viewing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
    The proposed standard for Flexible Delivery and Receipt Points
allows natural gas-fired generators easier access to fuel at times when
capacity is scarce. The proposed standard for Index-Based Capacity
Release provides clarity on the timing and use of price indices for
pricing and arranging index-based capacity release transactions.

DATES: Comments are due September 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number RM96-1-
030, by any of these methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ryan Irwin (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Kay I. Morice (technical issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  128 FERC ] 61,031.

Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines;
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to amend its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference
the consensus standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of
the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) that (1) permit the
use of indices to price capacity release transactions and (2) afford
greater flexibility on the receipt and delivery points for redirects of
scheduled gas quantities.

I. Background

    2. Since 1996, the Commission has adopted regulations to
standardize the business practices and communication methodologies of
natural gas interstate pipelines to create a more integrated and
efficient pipeline grid. These regulations have been promulgated in the
Order No. 587 series of orders,\1\ wherein the Commission has
incorporated by reference standards for interstate natural gas pipeline
business practices and electronic communications that were developed
and adopted by NAESB's WGQ. Upon incorporation by reference by the
Commission, these standards have become a part of the Commission's
regulations and have become mandatory and binding on the natural gas
pipelines under the Commission's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This series of orders began with the Commission's issuance
of Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,038 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. A cold snap in January 2004 in New England highlighted the need
for better coordination and communication between the gas and electric
industries as coincident peaks occurred in both industries making the
acquisition of gas and transportation by power plant operators more
difficult. In response to this need, in early 2004, NAESB established a
Gas-Electric Coordination Task Force to examine issues related to the
interrelationship of the gas and electric industries and identify
potential areas for improved coordination through standardization.
NAESB developed a number of standards to enhance the coordination of
scheduling and other business practices between the gas and electric
industries. On June 27, 2005, NAESB filed these standards and requested
clarification regarding a number of additional proposals that it was
considering, including capacity release indexed pricing, the use of
flexible receipt and delivery points upstream of a constraint, and
changes to the intra-day nomination cycle.
    4. In Order No. 698,\2\ the Commission incorporated these standards
by reference and provided the clarification requested in NAESB's June
27, 2005 filing. The NAESB report highlighted several issues relating
to Commission policy that were inhibiting the development of additional
standards and requested Commission guidance and clarification on these
issues. In the NOPR \3\ and in Order No. 698, the Commission provided
clarification and guidance to NAESB regarding Commission policies in
the following three areas: (1) Uses of gas indices for pricing capacity
release transactions; (2) flexibility in the use of receipt and
delivery points; and (3) changes to the intraday nomination schedule to
increase the number of scheduling opportunities for firm shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines; Standards for Business Practices for Public Utilities,
Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,251 (2007), order on
clarification and reh'g, Order No. 698-A, 121 FERC ] 61,264 (2007).
    \3\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines; Standards for Business Practices for Public Utilities,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,609 (2006) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On September 3, 2008, NAESB submitted a report to the Commission
with respect to these three issues. NAESB reports its membership
conducted thirteen subcommittee meetings, many of which were multi-day
meetings, held in a one year period from June 2007 to July 2008. While
the standards discussed related only to gas issues, NAESB states that
all interested parties including the Wholesale Electric Quadrant
membership were asked to participate and make their perspectives known.
Two hundred participants, including many from the electric industry,
participated in these meetings.

    6. NAESB's September 2008 report indicates that the WGQ has adopted
business practice standards for (1) increasing the flexibility of gas
receipt and delivery points and (2) index-based pricing for capacity
releases. In addition, despite holding 12 meetings with respect to
modifying the intra-day nomination schedule, NAESB reports that none of
the standards proposed achieved a sufficient consensus.

II. Discussion

    7. We recognize that the issues considered by NAESB were neither
simple nor straightforward, and very much appreciate the hard work, and
many hours committed by NAESB, and the 200 volunteers that participated
in the process of developing and considering these standards. We
propose to incorporate by reference the standards developed by NAESB
with respect to index pricing and to flexible receipt and delivery
points.\4\ These standards will not only assist in providing gas for
generation, but will provide enhanced flexibility to all shippers. The
index pricing standards provide rules under which releasing and
replacement shippers can create rate formulas for capacity release that
will better reflect the value of capacity. These standards also reflect
a reasonable compromise for dealing with copyright issues that arise in
using gas indices to set prices, ensuring that shippers have a
reasonable choice of available indices to use while equitably spreading
the costs entailed by the use of such indices among the pipelines and
shippers. The standard for the use of flexible receipt and delivery
points will enable all shippers to quickly and efficiently redirect gas
when such gas may be needed by gas generators or other shippers. With
respect to the question of intra-day nominations on which consensus was
not reached, we do not find a sufficient basis in the NAESB record for
us to propose any changes to our current regulations and policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The WGQ adopted the following changes to its standards: for
index-based pricing of capacity release transactions, it modified
WGQ Standards 5.3.1, 5.3.3, and 5.3.26, added WGQ Definitions 5.2.4
and 5.2.5, and added WGQ Standards 5.3.61, 5.3.62, 5.3.62a, 5.3.63,
5.3.64, 5.3.65, 5.3.66, 5.3.67, 5.3.68, and 5.3.69; and for flexible
points of receipt and delivery, it added WGQ Standard 1.3.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. NAESB's Business Practice Standards for Index-Based Pricing for
Capacity Release Transactions and Flexible Point Rights

    8. In Order No. 698, the Commission explained that under its
regulations, releasing shippers are permitted to use price indices or
other formula rates on all pipelines, regardless of whether the
pipeline has included a provision allowing the use of indices as part
of its discounting provisions.\5\ The Commission asked NAESB to examine
standards to help ensure that such releases can be processed quickly
and efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An index-based release is a transaction in which the price
for capacity is determined by differentials in the value of gas
between the upstream and downstream market. As the Commission found
in Order No. 637, the implicit value of transportation is the most
that any person who can purchase gas in the downstream market would
pay if it purchased gas in the upstream market and had to transport
it to the downstream market. Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas
Transportation Services, and Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas
Transportation Services, Order No. 637, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,091, at 31,271 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The standards for index-based pricing provide that shippers
wishing to release capacity may use a variety of specified indices and
methods to evaluate bids. The standards provide that pipelines must
support at least two non-public price index references that are
representative of receipt and delivery points on its system,\6\ and
must support all price indices it references in its gas tariff, or
general terms and conditions of service. Releasing shippers are
permitted to use alternative indices if the releasing shipper provides
licenses to the pipeline for the use of those indices. The standards
provide that the releasing shipper is responsible for providing the
pipeline, and the replacement shipper, with the method of calculating
the reservation rate from the index. The pipeline is required to adhere
to the standard capacity release timeline for processing releases if
the releasing shipper has provided the pipeline with sufficient
instructions to evaluate corresponding bids. However, if the offer
includes unfamiliar or unclear terms and conditions, or an index not
supported by the pipeline, the pipeline may process the release on a
slower time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We understand NAESB's use of the phrase non-public to refer
to commercial indices that charge subscription or license fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. At the time NAESB filed its report with the Commission, it had
not completed the technical standards for implementation of these
standards. However, these technical standards have been completed,\7\
and will be included in version 1.9 of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item 7a/NAESB WGQ 2008 Annual
Plan Item 4a/NAESB WGQ 2009 Annual Plan Item 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The Commission regulations require that pipelines permit
shippers flexibility to change their receipt and delivery points on
both a primary and secondary basis.\8\ In its June 27, 2005 report to
the Commission, NAESB requested clarification regarding its
consideration of a possible standard that would permit shippers to
shift gas deliveries from a primary to a secondary delivery point when
a pipeline constraint occurs upstream of both points.\9\ In Order No.
698, the Commission explained that, under its policies, pipelines must
implement within-the-path scheduling under which a shipper seeking to
use a secondary delivery point within its scheduling path has priority
over another shipper seeking to use the same delivery point but that
point is outside of its transportation path, and found that NAESB's
proposal regarding scheduling through upstream constraint points
appeared consistent with the Commission's regulations and policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 18 CFR 284.221(g) & (h).
    \9\ See Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,251 at P 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In its September 3, 2008 filing, NAESB included a standard that
would require pipelines to permit shippers to redirect scheduled
quantities to other receipt points upstream of a constraint point or
delivery points downstream of a constraint point without a requirement
that the quantities be rescheduled through the point of constraint.
This standard will provide shippers, including gas-fired generators,
with increased flexibility to obtain capacity or gas from other
shippers without adversely affecting other shippers' scheduling rights.
    13. The standards for indexed capacity releases and flexible point
rights appear to establish reasonable methods of providing enhanced
flexibility to shippers and to increase the efficiency of the
interstate pipeline grid, and we propose to incorporate these standards
by reference.
    14. NAESB approved the new and modified standards and related
definitions under its consensus procedures.\10\ Adoption of consensus
standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps to ensure
the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards
draw support from a broad spectrum of all segments of the industry.
Moreover, since the industry itself has to conduct business under these
standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards
that have the widest possible support. In Sec.  12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA),
Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use technical
standards developed by voluntary consensus standards organizations,
like NAESB, as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities
determined by the agency.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This process first requires a super-majority vote of 17 out
of 25 members of the WGQ's Executive Committee with support from at
least two members from each of the five industry segments--
Distributors, End Users, Pipelines, Producers, and Services
(including marketers and computer service providers). For final
approval, 67 percent of the WGQ's general membership voting must
ratify the standards.
    \11\ Public Law 104-113, 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 U.S.C.
272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Intra-Day Nomination Standards

    15. The NAESB report raised the possibility of developing standards
that would offer an additional intra-day nomination cycle with rights
for firm shippers to bump interruptible nominations. In Order No. 698,
the Commission stated that NAESB should actively consider whether
changes to existing intra-day schedules would benefit all shippers, and
provide better coordination between gas and electric scheduling.
    16. The Commission's regulations provide that nominations by
shippers with firm transportation priority have priority over
nominations by shippers with interruptible service.\12\ In Order No.
587-G,\13\ issued in 1998, the Commission, however, followed the Gas
Industry Standards Board \14\ consensus and permitted pipelines with
three intra-day nomination opportunities to exempt the last intra-day
opportunity from bumping. The Commission found that the consensus
created a fair balance between firm shippers, who will have had two
opportunities to reschedule their gas, and interruptible shippers and
will provide some necessary stability in the nomination system, so that
shippers can be confident by mid-afternoon that they will receive their
scheduled flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 18 CFR 284.12(b)(1)(i).
    \13\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587-G, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,062, at 30,672
(1998).
    \14\ At that time, NAESB was the Gas Industry Standards Board
and had not yet expanded to include the electric industry or the
retail gas and electric segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The NAESB standards currently provide shippers four nomination
opportunities: The Timely Nomination Period (11:30 a.m. CCT \15\ the
day prior to gas flow), the Evening Nomination Cycle (6 p.m. CCT the
day before gas flow); Intra-Day 1 (10 a.m. CCT the day of gas flow);
and Intra-Day 2 (5 p.m. CCT the day of gas flow). A firm nomination for
the first three nomination cycles has priority over (can bump) an
already scheduled interruptible (IT) nomination. But at the Intra-Day 2
cycle, a firm nomination will not bump already scheduled interruptible
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Central clock time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Cycle                  Nomination time (CCT)   Nomination effective         Bumping IT           Bumping notice       Schedule confirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timely.............................  11:30 am..............  Day-Ahead.............  Yes..................  4:30 pm..............  4:30 pm.
Evening............................  6 pm..................  Day-Ahead.............  Yes..................  10 pm................  10 pm.
Intra-Day 1........................  10 am.................  Day of................  Yes..................  2 pm.................  2 pm.
Intra-Day 2........................  5 pm..................  Day of................  No...................  NA...................  9 pm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The NAESB committee held 12 meetings and considered a wide
variety of possible revisions to the nomination schedule adopted in
1998. These included complete revisions of the timeline, including
changing the gas day; adding intra-day nomination opportunities within
the existing framework; changing the Intra-Day 2 to a bump nomination
while adding an additional no-bump nomination period, and merely
changing the Intra-Day 2 cycle to a bumpable nomination. None of these
proposals achieved a sufficient consensus at the subcommittee level.
    19. Comments to the Executive Committee were mixed on whether any
of these options were practicable, cost effective, or feasible. Some
commenters contended that changing the gas nomination schedule would
accomplish little for gas electric coordination without a coordinated
development of a standardized electric schedule.\16\ They also argued
that no compelling need existed to change the gas schedule and that
such a change could cause problems, because: Problems persist with
pipeline confirmations under the current gas nomination timeline and
increasing the number of nomination cycles or shortening confirmation
windows is likely to exacerbate those problems; modifying the intraday
nomination timeline to increase and/or add to the number of bumpable
cycles will further reduce the time to react to a cut in interruptible
service; increasing the number of bumpable nomination cycles or
delaying scheduling will decrease the number of available counter-
parties in the event of a cut in scheduled volumes; adding more and
later nomination cycles will cause staffing issues for LDCs, pipelines
and gas marketers resulting in increased costs with no assurance of
commensurate benefits.\17\ A number of commenters also highlighted the
need, in their view, to retain the no-bump rule for interruptible
transportation as being important for electric generators as well as
the market in general.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As an example of these comments, see NAESB September 3,
2008 filing at 26 (Comments of New Jersey Natural Gas Co., New
Jersey Natural Gas Company, http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_
060308njng.doc.), Comments of Interested LDCs, http://naesb.org/
pdf3/wgq_060308ldc.pdf).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ As an example, see NAESB September 3, 2008 filing at 26
(Comments of New England Power Generators Association, http://
naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308nepga.pdf, Independent Power Producers,
http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308ippny.pdf.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Others, however, argued that changes in the operation of the
gas markets since 1998 warrant ensuring that firm shippers receive the
full value of their firm contracts. These changes include the
imposition of strict pro rata hourly take obligations along with
significant imbalance charges and penalties; the development of the
organized wholesale electric bid market that has increased the need to
synchronize the scheduling of natural gas-fired generation units with
dispatch notification timelines; the introduction of more third-party
storage and service providers that require synchronization of
scheduling opportunities in times of peak usage; the introduction of
hourly gas contracting without hourly gas scheduling; and technological
developments that permit automated and expedited scheduling.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As an example, see NAESB September 3, 2008 filing at 26
(Joint Comments of Multiple Entities, http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_
060308aps.pdf for a detailed presentation of these arguments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. We agree with BG Energy Merchants that ``all in all it was a
difficult task that FERC gave to NAESB,'' \20\ and we appreciate the
amount of work and time committed to the consideration of these issues.
Ultimately, however, we agree with the Interested LDCs that ``a simple,
one-size fits-all solution does not exist that will

solve the complex issue of coordinating between the electric and gas
industries, [because] the diversity within the electric industry (e.g.,
differing timelines, system peaks times, generation mixes, and
prevalence of firm gas service), in particular, does not suggest that
revising gas scheduling procedures is the most effective means to
improve coordination.'' \21\ Based on the extensive NAESB record that
we reviewed, we are not convinced that we have a sufficient basis for
finding that any of the proposed revisions create a superior balance of
interests compared with the original consensus.\22\ We therefore are
not proposing any changes to our regulations with regard to intra-day
nominations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NAESB September 3, 2008 filing at 26 (Comments of BG
Energy Merchants, http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308bgem_dmt.doc).
    \21\ NAESB September 3, 2008 filing at 26 (Comments of
Interested LDCs, http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308ldc.pdf).
    \22\ For example, we do not know the costs to the pipelines and
practical implications to shippers or others of creating more
numerous intra-day nomination opportunities or adding a late
nomination period well after normal business hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The changes we implemented in Order No. 712,\23\ the removal of
the price ceiling for short term releases and the use of asset manager
agreements, together with the standards that NAESB has approved for
index pricing for capacity release and greater flexibility in using
receipt and delivery points should assist electric generators as well
as other shippers in obtaining firm transportation capacity quickly and
effecting changes in the way their gas is used. Rather than making a
nationwide change in scheduling affecting all pipelines, this is an
area best addressed by individual pipelines adding additional
nomination opportunities or services to better accommodate specific
conditions of their systems and the needs of gas-fired generation
within their regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release Market,
Order No. 712, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,271 (2008), order on reh'g,
Order No. 712-A, 73 Fed. Reg. 72,692 (December 1, 2008), FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,284 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    23. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11)
(February 10, 1998) provides that federal agencies should publish a
request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or
revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard
or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is
proposing to incorporate by reference voluntary consensus standards
developed by the WGQ.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    24. The following collection of information contained in this
proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits comments on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates,
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents'
burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The
following burden estimates include the costs to implement the WGQ's
definitions and business practice standards for interstate natural gas
pipelines and electronic communication protocols. The burden estimates
are primarily related to start-up to implement these standards and
regulations and will not result in ongoing costs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
           Data collection                Number of        responses per        Hours per       Total number of
                                         respondents         respondent          response            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-549C...........................                126                  1                 12              1,512
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..........................  .................  .................  .................              1,512
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if
appropriate)) = 1,512.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average
annualized cost for all respondents to be the following: \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The total annualized cost for the two information
collections is $226,800. This number is reached by multiplying the
total hours to prepare a response (hours) by an hourly wage estimate
of $150 (a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and
support staff rates). $226,800 = $150 x 1,512.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            FERC-549C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs......................          $226,800
Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance)...........               N/A
                                                       -----------------
    Total Annualized Costs............................           226,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. OMB regulations \25\ require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is
submitting notification of this proposed rule to OMB. These information
collections are mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines (FERC-549C).
    Action: Proposed collections.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0174.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit (Natural Gas Pipelines
(Not applicable to small business.)).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    32. Necessity of Information: This proposed rule, if implemented,
would upgrade the Commission's current business practice and
communication standards to provide for greater accessibility to fuel in
times of scarcity and rules to allow for alternative indices to
establish rates for capacity release to better reflect the value of
that capacity. The implementation of these standards will permit
greater flexibility by providing a reasonable choice of available
indices to use while simultaneously providing a greater equalization of
costs for their use. Incorporation of the standard for use of flexible
receipt and delivery points allows for the efficient redirection of gas
when it may be needed by gas-fired generators or other shippers thereby
improving the reliability in both the electric and gas industries.
    33. The implementation of these data requirements will help the
Commission carry out its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act of
promoting the efficiency and reliability of the gas industries'
operations. The Commission's Office of Energy Market and Regulation
will use the data for general industry oversight.
    34. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to business practices of natural gas pipelines and made a

preliminary determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to
establish more efficient coordination between the gas and electric
industries. Requiring such information ensures both a common means of
communication and common business practices to limit miscommunication
for participants engaged in the sale of electric energy at wholesale
and the transportation of natural gas. These requirements conform to
the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline
industries. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal
review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden
estimates associated with the information requirements.
    35. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax: (202)
273-0873, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    36. Comments concerning the collection of information(s) and the
associated burden estimate(s), should be sent to the contact listed
above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].

V. Environmental Analysis

    37. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\26\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\27\ The actions proposed here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of
facilities.\28\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary
and has not been prepared as part of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783
(1987).
    \27\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \28\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    38. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \29\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In drafting a rule an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that
its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective
alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment.\30\ Based on our analysis of the
requirements proposed in this NOPR, we do not think the proposed rule
will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \30\ 5 U.S.C. 601-604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Comment Procedures

    39. The Commission invites interested persons to submit written
comments on the NAESB business practice standards proposed for
incorporation by reference in this NOPR, as well as any related matters
or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments
are due September 8, 2009. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM96-1-
030, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they
represent, if applicable, and their address. Comments may be filed
either in electronic or paper format.
    40. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission
accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach
additional files with supporting information in certain other file
formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper
filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For paper filings, the original and
14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the
Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    41. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely, as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

    42. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    43. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available in eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in
eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing,
and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the
docket number, excluding the last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
    44. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during the Commission's normal business hours. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>) or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Incorporation by reference, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
part 284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

    1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

    2. Section 284.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (a)(1)(vii) to read as follows:

Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Additional Standards (General Standards, Creditworthiness
Standards,

and Gas/Electric Operational Communications Standards) (Version 1.8,
September 30, 2006);
    (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30,
2006) and including the standards contained in NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual
Plan Item 7b/NAESB WGQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 4b (August 25, 2008);
    (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30,
2006);
    (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 1.8, September 30, 2006);
    (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006) with the exception of Standard 4.3.4;
    (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Sep. 3, 2008) and
including the standards contained in NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item
7a/NAESB WGQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 4a (August 25, 2008) and the
Standards included in NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item 7a/NAESB WGQ 2008
Annual Plan Item 4a/NAESB WGQ 2009 Annual Plan Item 4; and
    (vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 1.8,
September 30, 2006) with the exception of Standard 10.3.2.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-17333 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/ OC/ CCSMD/ CSMB 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060  0283_ __ __ __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart O: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Commercial Ethylene Oxide Sterilization and Fumigation Operations 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1666.05 9. Keywords Ethylene Oxide, Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 10. Abstract Respondents are owners or operators of ethylene oxide commercial sterilization and fumigation operations. Respondents must submit one time reports at the start of construction, reconstruction, or modification, anticipated or actual startup dates, and physical or operation changes to existing facilities. In addition, certain owners or operators of existing commercial ethylene oxide sterilization and fumigation operations will submit reports of actual annual ethylene oxide use. Owners or operators of new commercial ethylene oxide sterilization and fumigation operations will submit one time reports of estimated annual ethylene oxide use. Reports of initial emissions testing are necessary to determine that the applicable emission limit is being met. Owners or operators of commercial ethylene oxide sterilization and fumigation operations will also maintain records of ethylene oxide emissions.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 100 b. Total annual responses 98 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 7328 d. Current OMB inventory 7328 e. Difference None f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 195 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 33 c. Total cost requested $ 228 d. Current OMB inventory $ 228 e. Difference None f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment __________

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) One time Reports, Daily, Monthly 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jonathan S. Binder Phone: ( 202) 564 2516 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement Signature of Program Official James Edward, Director Chemical, Commercial Services and Municipal Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70177-70179]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3899; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-14]

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of
Class E Airspace; Chico, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove
Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension at Chico
Municipal Airport, Chico, CA. After reviewing the airspace, the FAA
found it necessary to amend the airspace area by increasing the Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for
arriving and departing aircraft at the airport. The

FAA found no standard instrument approach procedures requiring Class E
surface area airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace.
This action would also change from navigation aid to geographic
coordinate references in the legal description, in anticipation of the
FAA's future navigation aid discontinuance plan. The geographic
coordinates of Chico Municipal and Ranchaero Airports also would be
updated for the Class D and E airspace areas noted above.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
3899; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-14, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 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 would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Chico Municipal
Airport, Chico, CA.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3899;
Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-14.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removing
Class E surface area airspace as an extension as this airspace is no
longer needed, at Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, CA. Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to
within a 4.1-mile radius east of Chico Municipal, extending to 6 miles
from the southeast to the north, excluding that airspace within 1 NM of
Ranchaero Airport, CA. Also, this action would remove reference to
navigation aids and use instead geographic coordinate references in the
legal descriptions. The geographic coordinates of the Chico Municipal
and Ranchaero Airports would be amended for the Class D and E airspace
areas to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 14 CFR 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 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AWP CA D Chico, CA [Modified]

Chico Municipal Airport, CA
    (Lat. 39[deg]47'43'' N., long. 121[deg]51'30'' W.)
Ranchaero Airport, Chico, CA
    (Lat. 39[deg]43'10'' N., long. 121[deg]52'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Chico Municipal Airport,
excluding the portion within a 1-mile radius of Ranchaero Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AWP CA E4 Chico, CA [Removed]

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

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Chico, CA [Modified]

Chico Municipal Airport, CA
    (Lat. 39[deg]47'43'' N., long. 121[deg]51'30'' W.)
Ranchaero Airport, Chico, CA
    (Lat. 39[deg]43'10'' N., long. 121[deg]52'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 39[deg]43'57'' N., long.
121[deg]45'28'' W. clockwise along the Chico Municipal Airport 6-
mile radius to lat. 39[deg]41'45'' N., long. 121[deg]50'42'' W.;
thence along the 174[deg] bearing from the Chico Municipal Airport
to intersect the 1-mile radius of the Ranchaero Airport, thence
counter-clockwise along the Ranchaero Airport 1-mile radius to
intersect the 200[deg] bearing from the Chico Municipal Airport,
thence along the 200[deg] bearing to the Chico Municipal Airport 6-
mile radius, thence clockwise to lat. 39[deg]53'31'' N., long.
121[deg]53'31'' W.; thence to lat. 39[deg]51'48'' N., long.
121[deg]52'04'' W. clockwise along the Chico Municipal Airport 4.1-
mile radius to lat. 39[deg]45'40'' N., long. 121[deg]46'54'' W.;
thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 5, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-28793 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 109)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31493-31495]
[DOCID:fr07jn07-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0200; FRL-8323-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Amendments to the Open Burning Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This SIP revision
pertains to the amendments of Virginia's open burning regulation. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0200 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0200, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0200. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 5, 2007, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Open Burning Regulation. The SIP

revision consists of regulation amendments to the April 26, 1996
submittal. The SIP revision expands the geographic applicability of the
control measure to implement the open burning seasonal restrictions as
part of its plans to reduce and maintain volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions in VOC emissions control areas in Virginia. The
amendments include: 9 VAC 5-40-5600--Applicability; 9 VAC 5-40-5610--
Definitions; 9 VAC 5-40-5620--Open Burning Prohibitions; and 9 VAC 5-
40-5630--Permissible Open Burning.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Virginia's Open Burning Regulation (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40) applies to
any person who permits or engages in open burning or who permits or
engages in burning using special incineration devices.
    A special incineration device is a pit incinerator, conical or
teepee burner, or any other device specifically designed to provide
combustion performance. Modifications of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 are made to
ensure that the regulation is consistent with the existing incinerator
regulations of the board and waste management regulations.
    The provisions of this amended regulation are applicable only in
the volatile organic emission control areas identified in 9 VAC 5-20-
206 of the Virginia Regulations during the months of May, June, July,
August and September. The volatile organic emission control areas
applicable to this regulation include:
    1. Western Virginia Emissions Control Area: Botetourt County,
Frederick County, Roanoke County, Salem County and Winchester County.
    2. Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area: Arlington County,
Fairfax County, Loudon County, Prince William County, Stafford County,
Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City and
Manassas Park City.
    3. Hampton Roads Emissions Control Area: James City County, York
County, Chesapeake City, Hampton City, Newport News City, Norfolk City,
Poquoson City, Portsmouth City, Suffolk County, Virginia Beach City and
Williamsburg City.
    4. Richmond Emissions Control Area: Charles City County,
Chesterfield County, Hanover County, Henrico County, Colonial Heights
City, Hopewell City and Richmond City.
    5. Fredericksburg Emissions Control Area: Spotsylvania County and
Fredericksburg City.
    Definitions included in this SIP revision are: Air curtain
incinerator, clean burning waste, clean lumber, clean wood, commercial
waste, construction waste, debris waste, demolition waste, garbage,
hazardous waste, household waste, industrial waste, landfill, local
landfill, open burning, open pit incinerator, refuse, salvage
operation, sanitary landfill, special incineration device, wood waste,
and yard waste.
    This SIP revision provides for the control of open burning and use
of special incineration devices for destruction of rubber tires,
asphaltic materials, crankcase oil, impregnated wood or other rubber or
petroleum based materials except when conducting bona fide fire
fighting instruction at fire fighting training schools having permanent
facilities. This SIP revision also provides for the control of open
burning and use of special incineration device for the destruction of
hazardous waste or containers for such materials. In addition, this SIP
revision provides for the control of open burning and use of special
incineration device for the purpose of salvage operation or for the
destruction of commercial/industrial waste.
    Open burning or the use of special incineration devices is
permitted on-site for the destruction of clean burning waste and debris
waste resulting from property maintenance, from the development or
maintenance of roads and highways, parking areas, railroad tracks,
pipelines, power and communication lines, buildings or building areas,
sanitary landfills, or from any other clearing operations. Such
destruction is prohibited in the VOC emissions control areas (see 9 VAC
5-20-206) during May, June, July, August and September.
    Open burning or the use of special incineration devices is also
permitted for the destruction of clean burning waste and debris waste
on the site of local landfills provided that the burning does not take
place on land that has been filled and covered so as to present an
underground fire hazard due to the presence of methane gas. Such
destruction is prohibited in the VOC emissions control areas (see 9 VAC
5-20-206) during May, June, July, August and September.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virgina

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege''' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) That are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be

afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because
granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which
is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    In implementing the open burning restrictions, this amended
regulation (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40) will reduce and maintain VOC emissions
in the volatile organic emission control areas identified in 9 VAC 5-
20-206 of the Virginia regulations. EPA is proposing to approve the
Virginia SIP revision for the Open Burning Regulation submitted on
February 5, 2007. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule pertaining to the amendments of Virginia's Open
Burning Regulation, does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 31, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-11038 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P