[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83190-83195]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 172

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0079 (HM-213E)]
RIN 2137-AF25

Hazardous Materials: PIPES Act Requirements for Identification
Numbers on Cargo Tanks Containing Petroleum Based Fuel

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) in response to the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines
and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2016, which reauthorizes the
pipeline safety program and requires a number of reports and mandates.
The PIPES Act requires PHMSA to take regulatory actions to establish
minimum safety standards for underground natural gas storage
facilities; to update the minimum safety standards for permanent, small
scale liquefied natural gas pipeline facilities; and to publish an
ANPRM to address a petition for rulemaking proposing hazardous
materials regulations related to the marking of identification numbers
on cargo tanks. This ANPRM specifically addresses the PIPES Act
requirement applicable to the petition for rulemaking related to the
marking of identification numbers on cargo tanks. PHMSA will consider
the comments, data, and information received in any future action
related to the petition.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2016-0079 (HM-213E) through any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 in the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2016-0079) or RIN (2137-AF25) for this notice at
the beginning of the comment. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to the docket management system, including any
personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be
submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of
receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 [45 FR 19477] or you
may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Objective of This ANPRM
III. Petitions Being Addressed (P-1667 and P-1668)
IV. Background Information
    A. Rulemakings
    B. Letters of Interpretation
V. Comments and Questions
    A. General Questions
    B. Safety Questions
    C. Policy Analysis Questions
VI. Regulatory Analysis
    A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Executive Order 13132
    C. Executive Order 13175
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Policies and Procedures
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. National Environmental Policy Act
    G. Privacy Act
    H. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
    I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
    J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

I. Executive Summary

    On November 12, 2015, PHMSA received a petition for rulemaking from
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) proposing amendments to
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180)
applicable to the marking of cargo tanks transporting petroleum
distillates. In an acknowledgment letter dated November 10, 2015, PHMSA
assigned the CVSA petition to Petition Number P-1667 \1\ (P-1667 or the
petition; Docket No: PHMSA-2015-0219). Subsequently, on November 24,
2015, PHMSA received another petition for rulemaking from the American
Trucking Association (ATA) proposing amendments to the HMR; this
petition is also applicable to the marking of cargo tanks transporting
petroleum distillates. In an acknowledgement letter dated November 25,
2015, PHMSA assigned the ATA petition to Petition Number P-1668 \2\ (P-
1668 or the petition; Docket No: PHMSA-2015-0251).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See P-1667 docket at the following URL: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2015-0219.
    \2\ See P-1668 docket at the following URL: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2015-0251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this ANPRM, PHMSA outlines issues raised by these two petitions
and discusses the background relevant to the marking of cargo tanks
containing petroleum distillates. PHMSA further poses a series of
questions and solicits public comment to determine the best practice
for addressing the issues outlined in these two petitions.

II. Objective of This ANPRM

    Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.''
See 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated this authority to
PHMSA in 49 CFR 1.97(b). The HMR are designed to achieve three primary
goals:
    (1) To help ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and
handled safely and securely during transportation;
    (2) to provide effective communication to transportation workers
and emergency responders of the hazards of the materials being
transported; and
    (3) to minimize the consequences of an incident should one occur.
    The hazardous material regulatory system is a risk management
system that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying a safety
or security hazard and reducing the probability and quantity of a
hazardous material release.
    Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized into hazard
classes and packing groups based on analysis of and experience with the
risks they present during transportation. The HMR do the following:
    (1) Specify appropriate packaging and handling requirements for
hazardous materials based on this classification, and require a shipper
to communicate the material's hazards through the use of shipping
papers, package marking and labeling, and vehicle placarding;
    (2) require shippers to provide emergency response information
applicable to the specific hazard or hazards of the material being
transported; and
    (3) mandate training requirements for persons who prepare hazardous
materials for shipment or transport hazardous materials in commerce.
    The HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each
mode of transportation.
    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to
petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. See 5 U.S.C.
553(e). In accordance with PHMSA's rulemaking procedure regulations in
49 CFR part 106, interested persons may ask PHMSA to add, amend, or
repeal a regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking along with
information and arguments that support the requested action. See 49 CFR
106.95. The issues being considered under this ANPRM are derived
specifically from petitions submitted to PHMSA by CVSA and ATA
regarding the marking of cargo tanks transporting distillate fuels.
    On June 22, 2016, President Barack Obama signed the Protecting our
Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act, which in
part requires PHMSA to publish an ANPRM to address P-1667 related to
the marking of identification numbers on cargo tanks. See Public Law
114-183. Section 15 of the PIPES Act reads as follows:

    EC. 15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS.
    Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Transportation shall issue an advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking to take public comment on the petition for
rulemaking dated October 28, 2015, titled ``Corrections to Title 49
CFR 172.336 Identification numbers; special provisions'' (P-1667).

    As mandated by section 15 of the PIPES Act, the objective of this
ANPRM is to solicit comments on P-1667. It further solicits comments on
the related petition for rulemaking, P-1668.

III. Petitions Being Addressed (P-1667 and P-1668)

    Through P-1667 and P-1668, the CVSA and ATA, respectively, asked
PHMSA to revise Sec.  172.336(c) of the HMR. In P-1667, CVSA proposed
that PHMSA reinstate language that existed in Sec.  172.336(c)(4) and
(5) prior to the publication of the HM-219 final rule [78 FR 14702] on
March 7, 2013. Prior to HM-219, the paragraphs in Sec.  172.336(c)(4)
and (5) read as follows:

    (4) For each of the different liquid petroleum distillate fuels,
including gasoline, in a compartmented cargo tank or tank car, if
the identification number is displayed for the distillate fuel
having the lowest flash point. After October 1, 2000, if a
compartmented cargo tank or tank car contains such fuels together
with a gasoline and alcohol fuel blend containing more than ten
percent ethanol, the identification number ``3475'' or ``1987'' must
also be displayed as appropriate in addition to the identification
number for the liquid petroleum distillate fuel having the lowest
flash point.
    (5) For each of the different liquid petroleum distillate fuels,
including gasoline transported in a cargo tank, if the
identification number is displayed for the liquid petroleum
distillate fuel having the lowest flash point.

    CVSA indicated in its petition that the current regulations, as
revised by the HM-219 final rule, are inconsistent with the previous
requirements. CVSA further noted that the table in Sec.  172.336 has
created confusion and lack of uniformity for industry, enforcement, and
first responders in regard to the display of identification numbers on
multi-compartmented cargo tanks containing different petroleum
distillate fuels.
    In P-1668, ATA proposed removing the requirement to display the
identification number of the petroleum distillate with the lowest
flashpoint, in addition to the identification number for the fuel blend
as ``3475'' or ``1987,'' on a multi-compartmented cargo tank carrying
an alcohol fuel blend with more than 10 percent ethanol. ATA further
noted that its comments to the HM-218D final rule [73 FR 4699] that was
published on January 28, 2008, suggested a uniform marking for all
gasoline and gasoline/alcohol fuel blends, as well as an update to the
Emergency Response Guide (ERG) requiring alcohol-resistant foam for all
releases. ATA noted that PHMSA disagreed with this statement at the
time because ``the new shipping description for gasoline/ethanol fuel
blends would enhance emergency responders'' ability to respond
effectively to incidents involving these materials.
    ATA identified several variations between Guide 127 and 128 in the
ERG, used in the event of an unintentional release by emergency
responders. The fuel blend identification numbers UN 1987 and 3475 are
attributed to Guide 127 and Guide 128 as appropriate for several liquid
petroleum distillates including UN 1203, 1270, and 1993. As noted by
ATA, Guides 127 and 128 differ in the use of ``alcohol-resistant foam''
versus ``regular foam'' in the event of small and large fires. PHMSA
has indicated that alcohol-resistant foam is necessary for emergency
response involving polar/water-miscible flammable liquids, such as
ethanol and gasoline fuel blends. In its petition, ATA reiterated the
National Tank Truck Carriers' (NTTC) comments to HM-218D, suggesting
that rather than displaying the identification number of the petroleum
distillate and the alcohol/ethanol fuel blend, PHMSA should instead
require the use of alcohol-resistant foam for both fuels in emergency
response situations. Furthermore, ATA cited that emergency responders
currently use alcohol-resistant foam to treat both types of fuel in the
event of an unintentional release, recognizing that the identification
number marking for fuel blends with greater than 10 percent ethanol is
not needed for emergency response purposes.

IV. Background

A. Rulemakings

    The rulemaking history pertaining to the marking of cargo tanks
containing fuel oil and petroleum distillates, as applicable to P-1667,
is complex. On June 6, 1979, the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA), PHMSA's predecessor agency, published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (HM-126A) associated with the use of
identification numbers on packages. See 44 FR 32972. In the NPRM, RSPA
proposed to require that an identification number be displayed on
orange panels affixed to portable tanks, cargo tanks, and tank cars.
RSPA proposed a set of standards in Sec.  172.328 that would require
cargo tanks to be marked on each side with the identification numbers
specified for the material in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT),
which is found in Sec.  172.101. RSPA further proposed to add Sec.
172.328(e) stating that a cargo tank marked with the identification
number or name of a specific hazardous material may not be used to
transport any other material unless the marking is removed or changed
to identify the hazardous material the cargo tank contains.
    RSPA received numerous comments to the HM-126A NPRM expressing
concern that the identification number requirements for cargo tanks
proposed and codified in Sec.  172.328(e) would limit a carrier's
ability to transport fuel oils and distillate fuels in multi-
compartmented cargo tanks and tank cars. As a result, in May 22, 1980,
RSPA published a final rule titled, ``Identification Numbers, Hazardous
Substances, International Descriptions, Improved Descriptions,
Forbidden Materials, and Organic Peroxides,'' which amended the HMR and
codified language in Sec.  172.336(c)(3) stating that identification
markings are not required for different distillate fuels in the same
cargo tank or tank car, if the identification number is displayed for
the distillate fuel having the lowest flash point. See 45 FR 34560.
    The May 22, 1980 final rule generated a number of appeals. On
November 10, 1980 [45 FR 74640], RSPA published a response to appeals
to the May 22, 1980 final rule. In the response, RSPA noted that the
provisions for allowing cargo tanks and multi-compartment cargo tanks
to only display the identification number of the distillate fuel with
lowest flash point were intended to eliminate the need for continuous
changes in identification numbers for operations where gasoline and
fuel oil are transported in the same cargo tank for different trips
that occur on the same day. However, in response to these appeals, RSPA
revised the HMR. To address compartmented cargo tanks, RSPA moved
regulatory text initially found in Sec.  172.336 from paragraph (c)(3)
to (c)(4); and to address cargo tanks and tank cars, RSPA moved
regulatory text initially found in Sec.  172.336(c)(3) to (c)(5). These
two provisions allowed for the display of the identification number of
the liquid distillate fuel having the lowest flash point carried in a
cargo tank; however, as noted above, RSPA intended for this exception
to be allowed for different trips that occurred on the same day.
    In an April 20, 1987 final rule (HM-166) [52 FR 13034], RSPA
revised the HMR and added the term ``Gasohol'' to Sec.  172.336(c)(4)
and (5). This term accounted for new formulations of gasoline mixed
with ethyl alcohol (i.e., ethanol) shipped under Sec.  172.336 of the
HMR.
    In a January 28, 2008 final rule (HM-218D) [73 FR 4699], PHMSA
revised the HMR and added ``UN 3475, Ethanol and

gasoline mixture or Ethanol and motor spirit or Ethanol and petrol
mixture, with more than 10% ethanol'' to the HMT to address gasoline
and ethanol mixtures such as E85.\3\ PHMSA further identified that
emergency response techniques between petroleum distillates and
gasoline and ethanol fuel blends differ. Specifically, gasoline and
ethanol fuel blends with more than 10 percent ethanol are polar/water-
miscible flammable liquids and decrease the effectiveness of alcohol-
resistant fire-fighting foam. Due to these differences in fire-fighting
methods, PHMSA revised the HMR and adopted language in Sec.
172.336(c)(4) and (5) to clarify that when a petroleum distillate fuel
and a gasoline/ethanol fuel blend with more than 10 percent ethanol are
both carried on a multi-compartment cargo tank or tank car, the UN
identification number ``3475'' or ``1987'' must be displayed in
addition to the identification number of the petroleum distillate fuel
with the lowest flash point. PHMSA notes that both NTTC and the
Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) suggested in
their comments to the HM-218D NPRM that revising the Emergency Response
Guidebook (ERG) to require alcohol-resistant foam for all flammable
liquids (Class 3), rather than adopting a new shipping description for
gasoline and ethanol fuel blends, would have made the requirement to
display the identification number for the alcohol fuel blend
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ E85 is an abbreviation for an ethanol fuel blend of 85%
denatured ethanol fuel and 15% gasoline or other hydrocarbon by
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a March 7, 2013 final rule (HM-219) [78 FR 14702], based on a
petition for rulemaking (P-1522) from Shell Chemicals,\4\ PHMSA removed
all references to ``gasohol'' and codified a table to more clearly
indicate hazard communication requirements for compartmented cargo
tanks, tank cars, or cargo tanks containing these fuels. The revised
text indicates that when a cargo tank contains more than one petroleum
distillate fuel, it may be marked with the identification number for
the liquid petroleum distillate fuel having the lowest flash point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See P-1522 docket at the following URL: https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=10&po=0&s=PHMSA-2008-0171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Letters of Interpretation

    On October 16, 2000, RSPA issued an interpretation letter (Ref. No.
00-0208 \5\) to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
concerning the identification number markings on cargo tanks containing
diesel fuel and gasoline. In this interpretation letter, RSPA stated
that if a cargo tank containing gasoline is marked with the
identification number for gasoline, ``1203,'' it may remain so marked
on a subsequent trip when the cargo tank contains diesel fuel; however,
the letter did not further clarify that this exception only applies to
transportation occurring on the same day. Thus, it appears that
industry uses this interpretation letter as standard practice to leave
the ``1203'' identification number marking for gasoline on cargo tanks
even if the cargo tank is not used for gasoline on any particular day
or on a subsequent trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Reference Number 00-0208 letter of interpretation at:
http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/reports/rspa/2000-10/000208.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2015, PHMSA issued an interpretation letter (Ref. No.
14-0178 \6\) to the South Carolina State Police concerning the
placement of identification numbers on multi-compartmented cargo tanks
containing petroleum distillates. In the example provided in the
interpretation letter, all of the compartments in the multi-
compartmented cargo tank were loaded with only diesel fuel, but
displayed ``1203,'' the identification number for gasoline. PHMSA's
response determined that if a multi-compartmented cargo tank contains
the same petroleum distillate fuel (other than gasoline) in each
compartment, then it must be marked with the correct identification
number for that material--not with ``1203.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Reference Number 14-0178 letter of interpretation at:
http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.6f23687cf7b00b0f22e4c6962d9c8789/?vgnextoid=2bd1d740bd03e410VgnVCM100000d2c97898RCRD&vgnextfmt=default
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Comments and Questions

    The PIPES Act specifically requires PHMSA to issue an ANPRM to
solicit public comment on P-1667. In addition, PHMSA is considering the
regulatory changes proposed in P-1668. We invite comment on the
following key issues and request that commenters provide data sources
to support their positions. If commenters suggest modification to the
existing regulatory requirements, PHMSA requests that comments provided
be as specific as possible.

A. General Questions

    1. Are carriers currently marking cargo tanks with the
identification number of a petroleum distillate fuel, including
gasoline and gasohol, when that material is not present in that cargo
tank? If so, why are carriers undertaking this practice? When and where
does this practice occur? How prevalent is this practice?
    2. If the answer to question 1 above is yes, how is this being done
without violating the prohibitive marking requirements in Sec.  172.303
of the HMR?

B. Safety Questions

    1. Would marking a cargo tank with the identification number for
the liquid petroleum distillate fuel having the lowest flash point,
rather than with the identification numbers representing each of the
different liquid petroleum distillate fuels including gasoline and
gasohol, create concerns for emergency responders?
    2. Does responding to an incident involving diesel fuel differ from
responding to an incident involving gasoline--if so, how?

C. Policy Analysis Questions

    1. How many entities and shipments would be affected by modifying
the existing regulatory requirements related to the hazard
communication standards for cargo tanks transporting petroleum
distillate fuels? In addition, how many of the effected entities would
be considered small businesses?
    2. What are the potential costs of modifying the existing
regulatory requirements related to hazardous materials communication on
cargo tanks pursuant to the petitioners' suggestions? If no specific
quantitative data is available, what types of costs would be reasonable
to anticipate (e.g., training cost, equipment replacement, etc.)?
    3. What consequences would be mitigated or prevented by modifying
the hazard communication requirements for cargo tanks transporting
petroleum distillate fuels? Have there been instances in the U.S.
safety record when the current requirements and industry practices
related to the identification number markings have resulted in
emergency response complications, injury, or death?
    4. What are the potential quantifiable safety and societal benefits
of modifying the existing regulatory requirements related to hazardous
materials communication for cargo tanks?
    5. What are the potential environmental impacts and human health
effects of modifying the existing regulatory requirements?

VI. Regulatory Analysis

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    This ANPRM has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly,

this ANPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and is not considered to be a significant regulatory action under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures of February 26, 1979. See 44
FR 11034.
    Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), supplements and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
that were established in Executive Order 12866. Together, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-
effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop
regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.''
    Additionally, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to
provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. Therefore,
PHMSA solicits comment on the key issues addressed in this ANPRM.

B. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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.'' We
invite State and local governments with an interest in this rulemaking
to comment on any effect that revisions to the HMR relative to
identification numbers displayed on cargo tanks may cause.

C. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination and Indian
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to
assure meaningful and timely input from Indian tribal government
representatives in the development of rules that ``significantly or
uniquely affect'' Indian communities and impose ``substantial and
direct compliance costs'' on such communities. We invite Indian tribal
governments to provide comments on the costs and effects that this or a
future rulemaking could potentially have on them.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies
and Procedures

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires
agencies to consider whether a rulemaking would have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Small
entities include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000.
    As such, PHMSA solicits input from small entities on the issues
presented in this ANPRM. If you believe that revisions to the HMR
relative to identification numbers on cargo tanks would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
please submit a comment to PHMSA. In your comment, please explain how
and to what extent your business or organization could be affected, and
whether there are alternative approaches to this regulation the agency
should consider that would minimize any significant impact on small
business while still meeting the agency's statutory objectives
    Any future proposed rule would be developed in accordance with
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), as well as DOT's
procedures and policies, so as to promote compliance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts on small
entities of a regulatory action are properly considered.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires
that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected
agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and
recordkeeping requests. It is possible that new or revised information
collection requirements could occur as a result of any future
rulemaking action. We invite comment on the need for any collection of
information and paperwork burdens that may apply as result of a future
rulemaking.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375,
requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal
actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require Federal agencies to
conduct an environmental review considering (1) the need for the
proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed action, (3) probable
environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and (4)
the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process.
See 40 CFR 1508.9(b). PHMSA welcomes any data or information related to
environmental impacts that may result from this ANPRM.

G. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477 (April 11, 2000), or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

H. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation,'' 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012), agencies must consider
whether the impacts associated with significant variations between
domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary, or
may impair the ability of American business to export and compete
internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety,
labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are, or would be, adopted in the absence of
such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Public Law 96-39, as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465,
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements,
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international
standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards
in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have
assessed the effects of this ANPRM to ensure that

it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly,
this rulemaking is consistent with Executive Order 13609 and PHMSA's
obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.

I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq., authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
The Secretary has delegated this authorization to the Administrator for
PHMSA. See 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA is issuing this ANPRM to gather the
necessary information to determine a course of action for clarifying
issues pertaining to the display of identification numbers related to
the transportation of fuel oils and petroleum distillates.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William Schoonover,
Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-27911 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6867-6868]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

February 4, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP02-534-012.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits Substitute First
Revised Sheet 9A to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 1/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090123-0379.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 9, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP02-534-013.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 9A
to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-61-003.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits Amendments
to Interim Negotiated Rate Agreements.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-383-091.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits Fifteenth Revised
Sheet 1405 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be effective
2/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-13-035.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 35 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 2/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-518-109.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits
Seventeenth Revised Sheet 24 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume 1-A, to be effective 2/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-314-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Inc.
    Description: Southern LNG Inc submits Twenty-Third Revised Sheet 5
et al., to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-316-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Company submits Thirteenth
Revised Sheet 26 et al., to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume
1, to be effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-322-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company submits First Revised
Sheet 2A et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/2/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-323-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits First Revised
Sheet 28 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 2.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-324-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits One
Hundred Twenty Fourth Revised Sheet 9 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-325-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
Fifth Revised Sheet 604 to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-326-000.
    Applicants: EQUITRANS, LP.
    Description: Equitrans, LP submits Thirteenth Revised Sheet 11 to
FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-327-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits Ninth
Revised Sheet 8 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-328-000.
    Applicants: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet 104 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-329-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC submits First
Revised Sheet 120 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1,
to be effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-330-000.
    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Nautilus Pipeline Company, LLC submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 174 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-331-000.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Stingray Pipeline Company, LLC submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 148 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.

    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-333-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Offshore Pipelines (UTOS) LLC.
    Description: Enbridge Offshore Pipelines LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet 141 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-334-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company requests temporary
waivers of certain tariff provisions and Commission Regulations for
February 20 and 21, 2009.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-335-000.
    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.
    Description: Sabine Pipe Line LLC submits request for temporary
waivers of tariff provisions and Commission Regulations.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-336-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines (AlaTenn), L.L.C.
    Description: Enbridge Pipelines, LLC submits First Revised Sheet
130 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-337-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits Second
Revised Sheet 92 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2860 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about personal vaporizers for nicotine. I use mine instead of smoking combustible cancer causing cigarettes. I smoked cigarettes for years and thanks to vaping, never looked back. Quite simply, I believe that they saved my life. I, as well as thousands of other vapers would be interested in providing you with personal stories, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52085]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0274; Airspace Docket No. 13-ACE-2]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Stockton, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Stockton, KS.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Rooks County Regional
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for
the Stockton, KS, area, creating controlled airspace at Rooks County
Regional Airport (78 FR 25229) Docket No. FAA-2013-0274. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September
15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Rooks County Regional
Airport, Stockton, KS, with an extension from the 7-mile radius to 10.1
miles south of the airport to contain aircraft executing new standard
instrument approach procedures at the airport. Controlled airspace
enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 establishes controlled airspace at Rooks County Regional Airport,
Stockton, KS.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Stockton, KS [New]

Stockton, Rooks County Regional Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]20'48'' N., long. 99[deg]18'17'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Rooks County Regional Airport, and within
2 miles each side of the 181[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 12, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-20376 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55662-55664]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0706; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-067-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain the Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-30, and DC-9-40 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead web
area is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD
would require modifying the aft pressure bulkhead. The modification
includes inspecting for cracks around the rivet holes, and repair of
any cracking. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of
the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 28,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: (562)
627-5348; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0706;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-067-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely
occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough
without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose

LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their
airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach
allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs
in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA
approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV
applicable to their airplanes.

Explanation of Applicability

    For The Boeing Company Model DC-9 series airplanes, AD 85-01-02 R1,
Amendment 39-5241 (51 FR 6101, dated February 20, 1988), was issued to
supersede an AD that required visual, eddy current, and x-ray
inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead for cracking. AD 85-01-02 R1
required accomplishing the modification specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984,
within 18 months after March 31, 1986 (the effective date of AD 85-01-
02 R1). Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated
February 23, 1984, specifies that the modification must be done for
Groups I and II airplanes with more than 40,000 total flight cycles.
    We are proposing this AD to address Group I or Group II airplanes
that have not accomplished the modification specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984. This
proposed AD is not a supersedure because the required actions apply
only to those airplanes. AD 85-01-02 R1, Amendment 39-5241 (51 FR 6101,
dated February 20, 1988), also contained additional actions that are
not included in this proposed AD.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2,
dated February 23, 1984. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0706.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information identified previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated
February 23, 1984, specifies that the original ventral bulkhead was
tested by McDonnell Douglas for up to 76,550 flight cycles, and
cracking was detected at 72,000 flight cycles. It was determined that
the initial inspection threshold of 40,000 flight cycles, as specified
in the service information, was based on half the test life, which was
adjusted for the current fleet distribution at that time. Testing also
showed an onset of cracking at 72,000 flight cycles was not widespread
fatigue type cracking. Therefore, we have determined that a compliance
time of ``before the accumulation of 72,000 flight cycles or with 18
months after the effective date of the AD, whichever is later''
adequately addresses the unsafe condition identified in this proposed
AD.
    Sheet 1 of Service Sketch 3109, and Sheet 7 of Service Sketch 3110B
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated
February 23, 1984; specify reporting the details of any cracks found;
however, this proposed AD does not require reporting.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated
February 23, 1984, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.
    These differences have been coordinated with the manufacturer.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to
WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification (includes           542 work-hours x $85              $4,680            $50,750           $304,500
 inspection).                     per hour = $46,070.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0706; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-067-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 28, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-30,
and DC-9-40 series airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2,
dated February 23, 1984.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 5312, Fuselage Main Bulkhead.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage bulkhead web area is
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD
to prevent fatigue cracking of the bulkhead, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    For airplanes on which the modification (AD4 rivets replaced
with AD5 rivets) required by AD 85-01-02 R1, Amendment 39-5241 (51
FR 6101, dated February 20, 1988) has not been done: Before the
accumulation of 72,000 total flight cycles, or within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify
the aft pressure bulkhead by removing all affected AD4 rivets and
doing either a fluorescent penetrant or eddy current inspection
around the rivet holes for cracks, repairing any cracking, and
installing five-leaf doublers with AD5 rivets, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984; except as required
by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Information on additional
procedures for the modification can be found in Notes 4, 5, and 6,
as applicable, of paragraph 1.D., `Compliance' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984.

(h) Exception to Service Information

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD,
and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2, dated
February 23, 1984, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(i) No Reporting Required

    Sheet 1 of Service Sketch 3109, and Sheet 7 of Service Sketch
3110B of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-A53-144, Revision 2,
dated February 23, 1984; specify reporting the details of any cracks
found; however, this AD does not require reporting.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the Los Angeles ACO, send it
to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by
Structures Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings.
For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment
45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 30, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22147 Filed 9-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71576-71579]
[DOCID:fr18de07-2]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0448; FRL-8506-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Clean Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 8, 2007. This revision
incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and
subsequently revised on April 28, 2006 and December 13, 2006, and the
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions for the State of West Virginia,
promulgated on April 28, 2006 and subsequently revised on December 13,
2006. West Virginia is subject to the CAIR FIP that implements the CAIR
requirements by requiring certain EGUs to participate in the EPA-
administered Federal CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season cap-and-trade programs. In accordance with
the Clean Air Act, EPA is approving this West Virginia SIP revision as
an abbreviated SIP revision which addresses the methodology to be used
to allocate annual and ozone season NOX allowances under the
CAIR FIPs. In this action, EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR
FIP, but is amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading
rules simply to note that approval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective on December 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0448. 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 West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601
57th Street, SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

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

I. Background

    On June 1, 2006, West Virginia submitted a full SIP revision to
meet the requirements of CAIR as promulgated on May 12, 2005. The SIP
revision is comprised of three regulations: 45CSR39 (NOX
annual trading program); 45CSR40 (NOX ozone season trading
program); and 45CSR41 (SO2 annual trading program). The
regulations adopted the 40 CFR part 96 model rules as set forth in the
May 12, 2005 rulemaking, however, because revisions to 40 CFR part 96
were finalized after the State had started its rulemaking process, did
not include the changes to the model rules that were made as part of
the April 28, 2006 CAIR FIP. Consistent with the provisions of the
CAIR, West Virginia submitted a letter on June 8, 2007, requesting that
portions of its June 1, 2006 SIP revision be considered as an
abbreviated SIP revision. The June 8, 2007 letter designated the
NOX allocation methodology provisions applicable to EGUs
under the CAIR FIP and originally submitted as part of its June 1, 2006
CAIR SIP revision as replacing the corresponding provisions of the CAIR
FIPs. Consistent with this request, EPA is treating the following
provisions of West Virginia's CAIR rules an abbreviated SIP revision:
Sec.  45-39-40, 45-39-41, and 45-39-42 ; and Sec. Sec.  45-40-40, 45-
40-41, and 45-40-42, except for paragraphs 40.3, 42.2.c, 42.2.d,
42.2.e, 42.3.a.2, and 42.4.b. The NOX allowance allocation
methodology in these provisions of West Virginia's June 1, 2006 SIP
revision is consistent with the methodology in part 96 and the FIP.
    On September 13, 2007 (72 FR 52289), EPA published a direct final
rulemaking notice (DFRN) to approve the June 8, 2007 revision to West
Virginia's SIP. The DFRN approved, as an abbreviated SIP, West
Virginia's methodology for allocating NOX allowances for the
NOX annual and NOX ozone season trading programs,
which will be used to allocate NOX allowances to sources in
West Virginia, instead of the federal allocation methodology otherwise
provided in the FIP. A detailed discussion of the CAIR requirements,
West Virginia's CAIR submittals, and EPA's rationale for approval of
the West Virginia's abbreviated SIP may be found in the DFRN and will
not be repeated here. In the DFRN, EPA stated that if adverse comment
was received, it would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule would not take effect. On
October 12, 2007, EPA received an adverse comment from the State of
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. EPA therefore
withdrew the DFRN on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62788).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: On October 12, 2007, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CTDEP) submitted adverse comments on EPA's
DFR notice approving West Virginia's abbreviated CAIR SIP. CTDEP
encourages EPA to approve state programs adopted to meet the emission
reduction requirements of CAIR. However, it argues that before
approving state CAIR plans, EPA should evaluate individually and in the
aggregate each state's clean air programs. They argue such evaluation
is necessary to ensure that each state's emissions do not significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment. CTDEP asserts its belief that the
CAIR program does not ensure that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements to prohibit transported emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment in Connecticut and other states will be
met. CTDEP expresses concern that EPA is determining through this and
other similar rulemakings that CAIR programs are sufficient to meet
States' section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations. CTDEP asserts, based on
EPA and State modeling for CAIR, that the levels of transported
pollution remaining after CAIR implementation are large enough that,
even with local controls, it may be difficult for Connecticut to attain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2010. Finally, CTDEP questions EPA's
determination that highly cost effective controls are adequate to
address States' section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations as compared to
``reasonable cost'' controls that could be achieved to effect more
stringent NOX reductions.

    Response: EPA does not agree that it is appropriate or necessary
for EPA to conduct additional analysis before approving the West
Virginia abbreviated CAIR SIP for NOX allowances and
NOX allowance methodology. West Virginia has chosen an
abbreviated SIP for NOX allowances and NOX
allocation methodology, one of four SIP elements for which states may
request an abbreviated SIP. With an abbreviated SIP, the CAIR FIP
remains in place for West Virginia. EPA's proposed approval of West
Virginia's abbreviated SIP would therefore only have the effect of
replacing, as provided for in the CAIR FIP, the corresponding FIP
provisions with the State's preferred allocations and methodology. EPA
has evaluated this abbreviated SIP revision and determined that it
complies with the requirements of the CAIR FIP provisions regarding
abbreviated SIPs. CTDEP does not challenge this determination. Thus,
CTDEP's comments do not specifically pertain to any aspect of EPA's
proposed action to approve the West Virginia CAIR SIP revision. Rather,
the comments appear to be directed broadly at EPA's decisions with
regard to states' section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations. These decisions
were made by EPA in the context of the CAIR rulemaking, which was
promulgated on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), not in the proposed action
to approve West Virginia's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision. Therefore,
CTDEP's comments are not relevant to the proposed action. CTDEP had
ample opportunity to submit comments both during the comment period for
the proposed CAIR rulemaking of January 30, 2004 (69 FR 4566) and
during the comment period for the proposed CAIR FIP of August 24, 2005
(70 FR 49708). EPA's proposal to approve West Virginia's abbreviated
CAIR SIP did not reopen either the CAIR or CAIR FIP rulemakings.
Consequently, CTDEP's comments are not relevant to this rulemaking, or
timely with respect to the CAIR and CAIR FIP rulemakings. Thus, EPA
does not believe it is necessary to conduct additional analysis on
whether West Virginia or any other state satisfies the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) before approving the West Virginia's abbreviated CAIR
SIP submission.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving West Virginia's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision
submitted on June 8, 2007, as discussed above. West Virginia is subject
to the CAIR FIPs, which require participation in the EPA-administered
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
cap-and-trade programs. Under this abbreviated SIP revision and,
consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, West
Virginia has adopted provisions for allocating allowances under the
CAIR FIP NOX annual and ozone season trading programs. As
provided for in the CAIR FIPs, these provisions in the abbreviated SIP
revision will replace or supplement the corresponding provisions of the
CAIR FIPs in West Virginia. The abbreviated SIP revision meets the
applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and (ee), with regard to
NOX annual and NOX ozone season emissions. In
this final action, EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but
is amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules
simply to note approval of West Virginia's abbreviated CAIR SIP.
    EPA is today taking action only on this request for an abbreviated
SIP revision and not the full CAIR SIP revision originally submitted,
which will be the subject of a separate rulemaking action. In the June
8, 2007 letter, West Virginia states that it will revise and promulgate
its CAIR rules 45CSR39, 45CSR40, and 45CSR41 to incorporate the
revisions to part 96 and indicates that it plans to submit an amended
CAIR SIP revision to EPA in 2008.

IV. Effective Date

    EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become
effective on the date of publication because a delayed effective date
is unnecessary due to the nature of the approval, which allows the
Commonwealth to make allocations under its CAIR rules. The expedited
effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less
than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.''
    CAIR SIP approvals relieve states and CAIR sources within states
from being subject to allowance allocation provisions in the CAIR FIPs
that otherwise would apply to it, allowing States to make their own
allowance allocations based on their SIP-approved State rule. The
relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow an
expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will 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).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves 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 rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 19, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action to approve West Virginia's abbreviated CAIR
SIP revision may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 6, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. Section 52.2520 is amended as follows:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) by adding entries for 45 CSR 39 and 45
CSR 40 at the end of the table.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) by adding the entry for Article 3,
Chapter 64 of the Code of West Virginia at the end of the table.

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia Sip
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State                        Additional explanation/
 State citation [Chapter 16-20        Title/subject        effective   EPA approval date    citation at 40 CFR
           or 45 CSR]                                         date                            Sec.   52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     [45 CSR] Series 39 Control of Annual Nitrogen Oxide Emissions to Mitigate Interstate Transport of Fine
                                     Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Ozides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 45-39-40...............  CAIR NOX Annual Trading       5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert   Only Phase I (2009-
                                  Budget.                               page number        2014).
                                                                        where the
                                                                        document begins].
Section 45-39-41...............  Timing Requirements for       5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert   Only Phase I (2009-
                                  CAIR NOX Annual                       page number        2014).
                                  Allowance Allocations.                where the
                                                                        document begins].
Section 45-39-42...............  CAIR NOX Annual               5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert   Only for Phase I (2009-
                                  Allowance Allocations.                page number        2014).
                                                                        where the
                                                                        document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  [45 CSR] Series 40 Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxide Emissions to Mitigate Interstate Transport of Ozone
                                               and Nitrogen Oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 45-40-40...............  CAIR NOX Ozone Season         5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert   1. Except for
                                  Trading Budget.                       page number        subsection 40.3, and
                                                                        where the          non-EGUs in
                                                                        document begins].  subsection 40.1 table
                                                                                2. Only Phase I (2009-
                                                                                2014).
Section 45-40-41...............  Timing Requirements for       5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert   Only Phase I (2009-
                                  CAIR NOX Ozone Season                 page number        2014).
                                  Allowance Allocations.                where the
                                                                        document begins].

Section 45-40-42...............  CAIR NOX Ozone Season         5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert   1. Except for
                                  Allowance Allocations.                page number        subsections 42.2.d,
                                                                        where the          42.2.e, 42.3.a.2, and
                                                                        document begins].  42.4.b.
                                                                                2. Only Phase I (2009-
                                                                                2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable       submittal    EPA approval date    Additional explanation
            revision                geographic  area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Article 3, Chapter 64 of the      Statewide..........       5/1/06  12/18/07 [Insert     Effective date of March
 Code of West Virginia, 1931.                                        page number where    11, 2006.
                                                                     the document
                                                                     begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 97--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 97 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et
seq.

0
4. Appendix A to Subpart EE is amended by adding the entry for ``West
Virginia'' in alphabetical order under paragraph 1. to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

    1. * * *
    West Virginia (for control periods 2009-2014)
* * * * *

0
5. Appendix A to Subpart EEEE is amended by adding the entry for West
Virginia in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

* * * * *
    West Virginia (for control periods 2009-2014)
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-24367 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26626]
[DOCID:fr10my07-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance at Midwest Iso-Related
Meetings

May 3, 2007.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend the following
Midwest ISO-related meetings:

 Reliability First and Midwest Reliability Organization
Resource Adequacy Conference (9 a.m.-4:30 p.m., ET)
    [cir] May 10, 2007.
    Marriott Downtown Indianapolis, 350 West Maryland Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
 Midwest ISO Supply Adequacy Working Group/OMS Resource
Adequacy Working Group (1 p.m.-5 p.m., ET)
    [cir] May 17, 2007.
    Lakeside Conference Center, 630 West Carmel Drive, Carmel, IN
46032.

    Further information may be found at http://www.midwestiso.org and

http://www.rfirst.org.

    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address
matters at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER02-2595, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER04-375, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER04-458, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket Nos. ER04-691 and ER04-106, Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL04-104, Public Utilities With Grandfathered Agreements In
the Midwest ISO Region
Docket Nos. ER05-6, EL04-135, EL02-111 and EL03-212, Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER05-752, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER05-1083, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1085, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1138, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1201, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1230, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL05-103, Northern Indiana Power Service Co. v. Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. EL05-128, Quest Energy, L.L.C. v. Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER06-18, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER06-27, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket Nos. EC06-4 and ER06-20, E.ON U.S., LLC
Docket No. ER06-1308, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket Nos. ER06-360, ER06-360, ER06-361, ER06-362, ER06-363, ER06-372
and ER06-373, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER06-356, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER06-532, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER06-313, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL06-31, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL06-49, Midwest Independent Transmission Systemerator, Inc.
Docket No. ER06-56, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER07-478, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER07-550, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER07-701, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317)
249-5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Christopher Miller, Office of
Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
(317) 249-5936 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8935 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P