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 e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for the past 10 years and since being introduced to e-cigarettes in October of last year, I haven't touched a single analog since. I'm healthier and feel so much better. I wish to provide you with my personal story, 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.

- Kayla Hines


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 63921]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2558-029--Illinois Otter Creek Hydroelectric Project

Central Vermont Public Service Corporation; Notice of Proposed
Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement for Managing
Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR section 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the Vermont State Historic
Preservation Officer (hereinafter, ``Vermont SHPO'') and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, pursuant to section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act \2\ and its implementing
regulations,\3\ to develop and execute a programmatic agreement for
managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places at the Otter Creek Hydroelectric
Project (Otter Creek Project).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 USC section 470 (2006) et seq.
    \3\ 36 CFR part 800 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
Vermont SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated
(36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities, pursuant to
section 106 for the Otter Creek Project, would be fulfilled through the
programmatic agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to develop
in consultation with the interested participants listed below. The
executed programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any order
issuance.
    Central Vermont Public Service Corporation, as applicant for the
Otter Creek Project, is invited to participate in the consultation to
develop the programmatic agreement. For the purpose of commenting on
the programmatic agreement, we propose to restrict the service list for
the proposed project as follows:

John Fowler, Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, The Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Suite 803, Washington, DC 20004.
Giovanna Peebles, State Archaeologist and State Historic Preservation
Officer, Vermont Division for Historic Preservation National Life
Building, 2nd Floor, Montpelier, VT 05620-1201.
Joseph Kraus, Senior Vice President, Operations, Engineering & Customer
Services, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation, 77 Grove Street,
Rutland, VT 05701.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason or reasons why there is an
interest to be included. Also, please identify any concerns about
historic properties, including properties of traditional religious and
cultural importance to a federally recognized tribe or tribal
corporation that has an affiliation to the area. If historic properties
are identified within the motion, please use a separate page, and label
it NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION.
    The original and eight copies of any such motion must be filed with
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, and must be served on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Please put the following on the
first page: Otter Creek Project No. 2558-029. Motions may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15 day
period.

    Dated: October 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26599 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 18223]
[DOCID:fr21ap09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC09-57-000]

Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Filing

April 14, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 3, 2009 Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline,
L.P. submitted a request for waiver of the requirement to submit the
2008 FERC Form No. 2-A under Section 260.2 of the Commission
regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: May 14, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9086 Filed 4-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 12846]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-17-000]

Humble Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

March 18, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 27, 2009, Humble Gas Pipeline Company
(HGPC) filed pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's
regulations, a petition requesting approval of rates pursuant to
section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act. HGPC seeks approval of
a maximum usage rate of $0.06546 per MMBtu for gas transported on
HGPC's Inlet System and a maximum usage rate of $0.0476 per MMBtu for
gas transported on HGPC's Header System. Further, HGPC requests each of
the two transportation services be subject to a 0.54% retainage for
fuel and lost/unaccounted-for gas.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, March 27, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6500 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]


Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC

PP# 5F8441

EPA has received a pesticide petition PP# 5F8441 from Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27419
requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.685 by
establishing a tolerance for residues of oxathiapiprolin in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:

Citrus fruit Crop Group 10-10 at 0.06 parts per million (ppm)

Citrus oil at 2.0 parts per million (ppm)

Citrus pulp at 0.09 parts per million (ppm)

Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Subgroup 1C at 0.04 parts per million
(ppm)

Potato, wet peel at 0.07 parts per million (ppm)

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin is adequately
understood to support the proposed tolerances. Studies in grape, lettuce
and potato when treated at the label rates showed no significant
metabolites. The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in plants was similar
regardless of the crop or the treatment regime. Oxathiapiprolin was the
principle residue in most crop fractions at various sampling points up
to crop maturity. The overall metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in rotated
crops (cereals, root vegetables, leafy vegetables) was consistent with
metabolism seen in the primary crops.

2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure
liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection, is available for enforcement
purposes.

3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials to meet the United States
requirements were carried out in orchards (citrus), field (potato). The
trials covered a wide range of locations, climates and soil types and
the data obtained reflect the commercial use of the
oxathiapiprolin-containing products in the major US crop growing
regions.

The results of these field trials substantiate oxathiapiprolin as the
major residue at harvest in the crop commodities. Oxathiapiprolin is
likewise the relevant residue in processed commodities.

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. Based on EPA criteria, technical oxathiapiprolin is
classified with an overall Toxicity Category IV (Tox Cat IV). This
compound is considered a Tox Cat IV based on no observed for acute oral,
dermal or inhalation toxicity up to the OPPTS testing guidelines limit
dose levels tested. Oxathiapiprolin is not an eye or skin irritant and
it is not a dermal sensitizer.

No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in an acute neurotoxicity
study conducted with oxathiapiprolin in rats. The no-observed-effect
level (NOEL) and no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) in an acute
neurotoxicity study where 2000 mg oxathiapiprolin/kg bw, which was the
highest dose administered in the study.

2. Genotoxicty. Oxathiapiprolin was evaluated in a battery of in vitro
and in vivo genetic toxicology studies. Negative results were obtained
in all studies indicating that oxathiapiprolin does not cause genetic
damage and therefore, does not pose a mutagenic hazard.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No effects on fertility were
observed in one- and two- generation reproduction studies in rats. No
effects on development were observed in developmental toxicity studies
in rats and rabbits. Slight delays in sexual maturation were observed in
male rats in the multi-generation reproduction studies, with a NOAEL of
104 mg/kg bw/day. Decreases in offspring body weight were also observed
in the multi-generation reproduction studies at higher dose levels.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Short-term oral feeding studies with
oxathiapiprolin were conducted in rats, mice and dogs with durations of
up to 90 days. In addition, a 14 day oral gavage study (conducted as
part of early discovery) and a 28-day dermal study were performed. No
adverse effects were observed in any of these studies. In all cases, the
NOAELs were greater than or equal to 1000 mg/kg bw/day. Non–adverse
findings observed in these studies were limited to changes in organ
weights, clinical chemistry parameters and liver cytochrome P450
isozymes.

Oxathiapiprolin showed no evidence of immunotoxicity in a 28-day feeding
study in mice. Additionally, no indications of a potential for
oxathiapiprolin to affect the immune system were noted in the
subchronic/carcinogenicity studies with rats, mice or dogs. Based on
this, oxathiapiprolin does not appear to pose an immunotoxic hazard.

Neurotoxicity endpoints were included in the subchronic (90-day feeding)
study that tested up to 1096/1300 mg/kg bw/day in male/female rats. No
evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the 90-day dietary toxicity
study in rats. There was also a lack of any treatment related clinical
signs indicative of potential neurotoxicity observed in the repeated
dose studies in mice or dogs.

5. Chronic toxicity. Based on the results of chronic feeding studies in
rats and mice, oxathiapiprolin was not carcinogenic in either species.
No indications of chronic toxicity were observed in either study. A
one-year toxicity study was also conducted in dogs, with no
toxicologically relevant findings. Possible test substance-related
changes in organ weights and clinical chemistry parameters were
observed.

6. Animal metabolism. [14C]Oxathiapiprolin was investigated in rats
after single low and high dose administration, and after multiple
treatments at low doses. At the low does (10 mg/kg bw) absorption was
31-49%, and declined to 5.4-7.7% at the high dose (200 mg/kg bw). Peak
plasma concentrations occurred at 0.25-9.5 hours. Plasma 14C residue
concentrations showed steady-state kinetics in male and female rats
after multiple low does administrations (10 gm/kg bw for 14 days)

Maximum tissue concentrations at Tmax occurred in the liver. Clearance
was rapid for liver and other tissues by 168 hours after dosing. All
tissues at 168 hours, including the carcass, collectively retained
<0.05% of the dose. The pattern of distribution was similar between
sexes and single and multiple dose administration. The low percentage
and concentration values in tissues indicate very low potential for
accumulation.

Plasma terminal elimination half-lives ranged from 40-51 hours following
single or multiple low-dose administration. Excretion in urine and feces
was >95% complete by 48 hours after single dosing. The pattern of
excretion was similar after multiple dosing. Fecal excretion was the
primary route of elimination (≥90%). Recovery in urine was much lower
(≤2.5%). Essentially no excretion occurred by exhalation.

7. Metabolite toxicology. Oxathiapiprolin is considered to be the only
molecule of toxicological relevance. Toxicology studies conducted with
metabolites support this conclusion.

8. Endocrine disruption. No relevant effects were observed on any
endocrine tissue in short- and long-term studies in rats, mice and dogs
to suggest an adverse impact on estrogen or androgen pathways or on
steroid biosynthesis. The reproduction studies in rats provided
sufficient information to fully interpret the effects of oxathiapiprolin
on reproduction. No observations in that study suggested an adverse
effect on estrogen. Additionally, investigational studies were conducted
that suggest no adverse effects on estrogen. The slight delay in
maturation observed in male rats in the reproduction studies may be
exacerbated by weight effects; however, the data suggest that other
factors are involved. Investigational studies did not reveal any adverse
effects on androgens by oxathiapiprolin in rats.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Subsequent to the filing of a pesticide petition by
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE (DuPont), EPA
established tolerances for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin,
1-(4-{4-[(5RS)-5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-1,2-oxazol-3-yl]-1,3-t
hiazol-2-yl}-1-piperidyl)-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-y
l] ethanone, in or on: Brassica, head and stem (Subgroup 5A); ginseng;
grape; leafy greens (Subgroup 4A); onion, bulb (Subgroup 3-07A); onion,
green (Subgroup 3-07B); pea, edible-podded; pea, succulent shelled;
tomato, dried; vegetable, cucurbit (Group 9); vegetable, fruiting (Group
8-10); and vegetable, tuberous and corm (Subgroup 1C).  With this
Notice-of-Filing, Syngenta is requesting new tolerances for its proposed
uses on potato and citrus (Crop Group 10-10).  There is no expectation
of residues of oxathiapiprolin in the meat, milk, or eggs of ruminants
and/or poultry resulting from any current or proposed uses and no
tolerances have been proposed for those commodities at this time.

The EPA stated in its June 25, 2015 human health safety technical review
of the DuPont petition (DP Barcode D417279) that toxicological studies
for oxathiapiprolin did not demonstrate any treatment related effects
and did not subsequently establish any oral, dermal, or inhalation
(acute, chronic, or short-term) endpoints for assessment of consumer
exposures, and in keeping with the EPA’s current policy and practice
with respect to oxathiapiprolin, Syngenta has not conducted any consumer
risk assessments for its proposed uses on citrus fruit (crop group
10-10), tuberous and corm vegetables (subgroup 1C).

i. Food

Acute exposure.  Due to the lack of toxicological endpoints and
Points-of-Departure (PODs), a quantitative acute dietary risk assessment
was not conducted. While dietary exposure to oxathiapiprolin may occur
through food and drinking water, no risks of concern are anticipated due
to the lack of toxicity at anticipated human exposure levels.

Chronic exposure.  Due to the lack of toxicological endpoints and PODs,
a quantitative chronic dietary risk assessment was not conducted. While
dietary exposure to oxathiapiprolin may occur through food and drinking
water, no risks of concern are anticipated due to the lack of toxicity
at anticipated human exposure levels.

Cancer.  A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted.  Oxathiapiprolin
is classified as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."  No
treatment-related increase in tumors was observed in carcinogenicity
studies in rats and/or mice.

ii. Drinking water. Due to the lack of toxicological endpoints and PODs,
a quantitative drinking water assessment was not conducted.

2. Non-dietary exposure

Residential Exposure.  There is no residential handler exposure
scenarios associated with the proposed use on turfgrass (i.e., golf
courses and commercial landscapes).  Residential exposures are also
expected for adults and children conducting post-application activities
on treated golf course (turf).  However, since no toxicological
endpoints of concern were identified for oxathiapiprolin and no PODs
were selected, a quantitative residential risk assessment was not
conducted.  Although there is a proposed use on ornamental plants, the
proposed use is only for nurseries and commercial greenhouses.  HED
notes that there are no direct homeowner applications of oxathiapiprolin
to ornamentals; however, treated ornamentals could be purchased at a
retail location for use in a residential setting.  HED considers
post-application exposure resulting from this scenario to be negligible.
 Furthermore, a quantitative residential post-application assessment for
the use of oxathiapiprolin on commercial ornamentals was not performed
because of the lack of potential exposure and the absence of
toxicological endpoints or PODs.

Occupational Exposure.  Although there is potential for occupational
handler and post-application exposure, risk estimates for OXTP were not
quantitatively assessed because no dermal or inhalation toxicological
endpoints were identified or PODs selected.  The PPE statement on
proposed labels requires handlers to wear baseline clothing (i.e.,
long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes plus socks), no chemical-resistant
gloves and no respirator.  No additional PPE recommendations are needed
based on HED’s risk assessment.  The PPE determination and REIs on
proposed labels should be based on the acute toxicity of OXTP.

D. Cumulative Effects

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, E PA has not made a
common mechanism of toxicity finding as to oxathiapiprolin and any other
substances and oxathiapiprolin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that oxathiapiprolin
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common
mechanism on EPA' s website at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative .

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. There is the potential for dietary (food and
drinking water) and residential exposures associated with all current
and proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin.  However, due to the lack of
toxicity at the human exposure levels anticipated for oxathiapiprolin
based on the proposed use patterns, no quantitative dietary,
residential, or aggregate exposure assessments are required and no risks
of concern are anticipated.

2. Infants and children. There is the potential for dietary (food and
drinking water) and residential exposures associated with all current
and proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin.  However, due to the lack of
toxicity at the human exposure levels anticipated for oxathiapiprolin
based on the proposed use patterns, no quantitative dietary,
residential, or aggregate exposure assessments are required and no risks
of concern are anticipated.

F. International Tolerances

Codex Alimentarious Commission has not yet established Maximum Residue
Limits (CXLs) for oxathiapiprolin.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30598-30599]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1821-006.
    Applicants: Panda Stonewall LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing (ER17-1821)
under Schedule 2 of PJMI's OATT to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1948-001.
    Applicants: Potomac-Appalachian Highline Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: PATH submits Order 864 Compliance
Filing re: Deficiency Letter to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1951-001.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: MAIT submits filing in response to
Commission's 5/4/2021 Deficiency Letter to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1191-005.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended and Restated Minden PSA to
be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2064-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of La Paloma GSFA and
GIA (TO SA 18) to be effective 8/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210602-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2065-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-06-02_Real-Time RSG
Make Whole Payment Filing to be effective 8/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210602-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2066-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-06-02_Attachment FF
Access to Transmission Planning Information to be effective 8/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210602-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2067-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6084; Queue No. AF2-292 to be effective 5/4/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210602-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2068-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: MISO Schedule 50 Cost Recovery Filing of ITC Midwest,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210602-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2069-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
Service Agreement No. 4765; Queue No. AB1-123 to be effective 7/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2073-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 327
between Tri-State and United Power to be effective 6/4/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 3, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12068 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41184]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice for Hilo International Airport, Hilo,
Hawaii

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces its determination that the noise exposure
maps submitted by Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Airports
Division (HDOT-A), for Hilo International Airport under the provisions
of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et. seq (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act)
and 14 CFR part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements.

DATES: This notice is effective July 9, 2013, and applicable May 31,
2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Wong, Environmental Protection
Specialist, FAA Western-Pacific Region, Honolulu Airports District
Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 7-128, Honolulu, Hawaii,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action
may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for Hilo International Airport
are in compliance with applicable requirements of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part
150''), effective May 31, 2013. Under 49 U.S.C. section 47503 of the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as
``the Act''), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure
maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible
land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of
projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations
will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in
consultation with interested and affected parties in the local
community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An
airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found
by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Part 150,
promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility
program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has
taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and
prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by HDOT-A. The documentation that
constitutes the ``Noise Exposure Maps'' as defined in section 150.7 of
Part 150 includes: Exhibit 1 ``Existing (2013) Noise Exposure Map'' and
Exhibit 2 ``Future (2018) Noise Exposure Map.'' The FAA has determined
that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in
compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on May 31, 2013.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such determination
does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or
plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to
fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning
the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure
contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503
of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way
in determining the relative locations of specific properties with
regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise
exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which
properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the
Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control
and planning responsibilities of local government. These local
responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through
FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for
the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map
depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport
operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and
planning agencies with which consultation is required under section
47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the
airport operator, under section 150.21 of Part 150, that the
statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
    Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the
following locations:
    Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Airports
Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California
90261.
    Federal Aviation Administration, Honolulu Airports District Office,
HNL-ADO, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 7-128, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
    Administrative Offices of the Hawaii Department of Transportation--
Airports, Engineering Branch, 400 Rodgers Boulevard, 7th Floor,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819.
    Hilo International Airport, 2450 Kekuanaoa Street, Suite 215, Hilo,
Hawaii 96720.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on May 31, 2013.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-16451 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70254]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28804]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275; FRL-8853-6]

Typographical Error in Summary Notice of Filing in Docket for
Polymerized Fatty Acid Esters With Aminoalcohol Alkoxylates; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of June 8, 2010
(75 FR 32463) (FRL-8827-5), concerning the Notice of Filing (NOF) for
Pesticide Petition (PP) 0E7699 for polymerized fatty acid esters with
aminoalcohol alkoxylates submitted by Exponent, on behalf of Croda.
Although the NOF that appeared in the Federal Register was correct,
there was a typographical error in the summary NOF that was placed in
docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275. This document is being issued
to announce that the Agency has placed a corrected summary NOF in the
docket. Please see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275 for the
corrected version.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Sunderland, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. What Does This Correction Do?

    The Notice of Filing (NOF) for Pesticide Petition (PP) 0E7699 for
polymerized fatty acid esters with aminoalcohol alkoxylates submitted
by Exponent, on behalf of Croda, published in the Federal Register (FR
Doc. 2010-13689) of June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32463) (FRL-8827-5) is
corrected as follows: Although the NOF that appeared in the Federal
Register was correct, there was a typographical error in the summary
NOF that was placed in docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275. The
summary referenced an incorrect CAS No. 1173188-71-2 as the test
chemical for the studies provided in support of the petition, but
should have read CAS No. 1173188-81-2. This document is being issued to
announce that the Agency has placed the corrected summary NOF in the
docket. Please see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275 for the
corrected version.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: November 4, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-28804 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23490-23492]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0387]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tug CHAMPION and Deck Barge MM-142 Operating in the
Straits of Mackinac

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie zone. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to protect the public, contractors, and the
contractor's equipment from potential hazards associated with drilling,
coring and surveying by persons conducting cable replacement and
subsurface investigations in the Straits of Mackinac. Vessels will not
be able to operate in certain U.S. navigable waters in the Straits of
Mackinac within 500 yards of the Tug Champion and Deck Barge MM-142
without authorization from the Captain of the Port.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 22, 2019
through 7 p.m. on June 7, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from May 17, 2019,
through June 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0387 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO Robert A Gruschow, Sector Sault Sainte Marie
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (906) 253-
2246, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. Drilling and coring must be done so
that the American Transmission Company can begin the replacement of the
servicing lines. Delaying this rule to wait for a notice and comment
period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
the public from the potential hazards associated with drilling, coring
and surveying.
    We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same
reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone immediately to protect the public from the hazards associated with
drilling, coring and surveying.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones: 46 U.S.C. 7003; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The American Transmission Company is scheduled to conduct cable
replacement and subsurface investigations in the Straits of Mackinac
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from May 17, 2019 through June 7, 2019.
This rule is needed to protect the public and responders within the
safety zone from potential hazard associated with drilling, coring and
surveying by persons on the Tug CHAMPION and Deck Barge MM-142 while
this work is being done.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 7
a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from May 17, 2019 through June 7, 2019, unless
drilling coring and surveying work is completed before June 7. If the
COTP determines the rule

need not to be enforced through June 7, he will issue a general
permission to enter the zone and will issue a separate rule to
terminate this regulation.
    The safety zone will cover all U.S. navigable waters of the Straits
of Mackinac bounded by longitudes 084[deg]20' W and 085[deg]10' W and
latitudes 045[deg]39' N and 045[deg]54' N that are within 500 yards of
where Tug CHAMPION and Deck Barge MM-142 will be operating. This rule
is necessary to ensure the safety of the public and surveyors during
these operations.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte
Marie, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port
or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16 or telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule is
confined to area encompassing emergency operations. Under certain
conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety
zones when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of the vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the vicinity of the safety zone.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons identified in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Further, the Coast Guard will
give advance notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners so
the public can plan accordingly.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a
safety zone of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60d of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the
docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
However, we seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0387 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0387  Safety Zone; Temporary Safety Zone (500 yards)--
around the Tug CHAMPION and Deck Barge MM-142 operating in the Straits
of Mackinac.

    (a) Location. The following areas are temporary safety zones: All
U.S. navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac bounded by longitudes
084[deg]20' W and 085[deg]10' W and latitudes 045[deg]39' N and
045[deg]54' N, within 500 yards of where the Tug CHAMPION and Deck
Barge MM-142 will be operating.
    (b) Definitions. The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of
the Port, Sault Sainte Marie is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port,
Sault Sainte Marie to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene
representative of the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie will be
aboard a Coast Guard vessel.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-
scene representative.
    (2) Before a vessel Operator may enter or operate within the safety
zone, they must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Sault
Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative via VHF Channel 16 or
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: May 17, 2019.
C.L. Moberley,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2019-10700 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 1 of 2 Proposed Priority Ports of Entry Types of Facilities and Universe:

Facilities disposing and/ or storing hazardous chemicals or wastes which are located at or near ports of entry into the United States. Ports of entry include airports as well as water and land ports of entry.

Geographic Range:

Ports of entry throughout the United States.

Environmental Risks:

The significant environmental risk is the illegal disposal and/ or storage of hazardous chemicals or wastes in facilities at or near ports of entry into the United States. Unsafe or improper management of these hazardous materials results in facilities being vulnerable to theft or destruction through intentional acts or accidents. The targeting of such facilities for intentional hazardous releases at the local level, or as the source for hazardous materials to cause incidents elsewhere, presents a Homeland Security risk especially if the owner/ operator has little resources to secure the safe operation of the facility. Additionally, unfamiliarity with the environmental regulations, as well as the dangers associated with the hazardous materials and/ or wastes, puts warehouse workers and owner/ operators at risk for exposure to chemicals that may be subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as well as other regulations such as the Clean Air Act or the Toxics Substances Control Act.

In some cases, the facilities located in larger population centers are more likely to be scrutinized by federal, state, and local law enforcement thus making them less vulnerable to illegal activity. However, smaller facilities in less populated areas such as along the US/ Mexican border may lack the resources and knowledge to ensure secure operation of the facilities. By working with state and local emergency planning agencies, EPA can provide compliance assistance such as workshops, mailings, and information through the media to ensure that all facilities have the attention of federal and local authorities.

In some cases, the communities near these facilities are people of color with a mixture of low income and/ or non English speaking residents and they may face disproportionate exposure to The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 2 of 2 environmental risks.

Noncompliance Information Common problems include illegal disposal and failure to properly identify and manage hazardous materials, solids, and wastes. Part of the pattern of noncompliance is due to a lack of awareness of the contents of unlabeled, poorly maintained containers, some of which can become subject to RCRA by being abandoned, illegally stored and/ or disposed.

Region 6 inspections show that a pattern of noncompliance is confirmed at border crossing warehouses. Recent inspections at warehouses within port authorities indicate these compliance issues potentially exist at all ports of entry.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36387-36390]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0570; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-014-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes;
Model A310 Series Airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-
600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes
(Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:
* * * * *
    A recent analysis conducted by the manufacturer showed a
particular risk for explosive failure of the * * * hydraulic
accumulator.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, might, for some
aeroplane installations, lead to damage to all three hydraulic
circuits, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane or
could, for certain other aeroplane installations, lead to an
undetected fire in the wheel bay.
* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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 Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116,

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0570;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-014-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 based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0006, dated January 17, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Since 1984, the design of the hydraulic accumulator installed on
all the affected Airbus types has changed. The Part Number (P/N)
remained the same, but the manufacturer did not record the serial
number of the part that was the first to be manufactured to the
changed design specification.
    The new design hydraulic accumulator is manufactured with 2
pieces unit welded, instead of 4 pieces unit with 3 welds (old
design) as pictured in Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD. The welding
process of the new design hydraulic accumulator provides a higher
strength shell material and more reliability.
    A recent analysis conducted by the manufacturer showed a
particular risk for explosive failure of the old design hydraulic
accumulator.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, might, for some
aeroplane installations, lead to damage to all three hydraulic
circuits, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane or
could, for certain other aeroplane installations, lead to an
undetected fire in the wheel bay.
    For the reasons explained above, this [EASA] AD requires a one
time detailed visual inspection to identify the old designed
accumulators installed on certain hydraulic systems, the replacement
of those accumulators by new designed accumulators and, irrespective
of findings, the installation of warning placards to avoid
installation of old designed accumulators on the affected hydraulic
systems.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the service bulletins identified in the following
table. The actions described in this service information are intended
to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

                                           Table--Service information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Airbus mandatory service bulletin--                 Revision--                      Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-29-0126, including Appendices 01 and 02......  01.......................  October 12, 2010.
A300-29-0127......................................  Original.................  August 12, 2010.
A300-29-6063, including Appendix 01...............  Original.................  August 12, 2010.
A300-29-6064......................................  Original.................  August 12, 2010.
A310-29-2099, including Appendix 01...............  Original.................  August 12, 2010.
A310-29-2100......................................  Original.................  August 12, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 184 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $197 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $145,728, or $792 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $10,700, for a cost
of $11,125 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2011-0570; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
014-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 8, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the products identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category,
all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes;
A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; A300 F4-605R and F4-622R
airplanes; and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29:
Hydraulic power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A recent analysis conducted by the manufacturer showed a
particular risk for explosive failure of the * * * hydraulic
accumulator.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, might, for some
aeroplane installations, lead to damage to all three hydraulic
circuits, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane or
could, for certain other aeroplane installations, lead to an
undetected fire in the wheel bay.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection, Replacement, and Placard Installation

    (g) Within 30 months or 6,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of
each type 5 hydraulic accumulator, part number (P/N) 3059103-1, P/N
3059103-2, P/N 3059103-8, and P/N 3059103-9, to determine if an old
design accumulator (i.e., pre-1984) is installed on any affected
hydraulic circuit indicated in table 1 of this AD, as applicable, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
Airbus mandatory service bulletin identified in table 2 of this AD.

                 Table 1--Applicable hydraulic circuits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Airbus model                      Hydraulic circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 airplanes pre-modification 02447..  Blue and Green.
A300 airplanes post-modification 02447.  Blue.
A300-600 airplanes.....................  Blue.
A310 airplanes.........................  Green.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 2--Applicable service information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Airbus mandatory service
           bulletin--              Revision --           Dated --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-29-0126 (for Model A300     01.............  October 12, 2010.
 airplanes).
A300-29-6063 (for Model A300-    Original.......  August 12, 2010.
 600 airplanes).
A310-29-2099 (for Model A310     Original.......  August 12, 2010.
 airplanes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (h) If, during any detailed inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, an old design hydraulic accumulator (i.e., pre-1984)
is found installed on any affected hydraulic circuit as indicated in
table 1 of this AD, as applicable to airplane model, before further
flight replace each affected old design accumulator with a new
design accumulator, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable Airbus mandatory service bulletin
identified in table 2 of this AD.
    (i) Before further flight after accomplishing the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Install a placard at the
designated location of any affected hydraulic circuit indicated in
table 1 of this AD, as applicable to airplane model, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus
mandatory service bulletin identified in table 3 of this AD.

              Table 3--Other applicable service information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin--                Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-29-0127...........................  August 12, 2010.
A300-29-6064...........................  August 12, 2010.
A310-29-2100...........................  August 12, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as

appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0006, dated January 17, 2011; and the
service bulletins identified in table 4 of this AD; for related
information.

                  Table 4--Related service information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airbus Mandatory Service
          Bulletin--              Revision--             Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-29-0126.................  01..............  October 12, 2010.
A300-29-0127.................  Original........  August 12, 2010.
A300-29-6063.................  Original........  August 12, 2010.
A300-29-6064.................  Original........  August 12, 2010.
A310-29-2099.................  Original........  August 12, 2010.
A310-29-2100.................  Original........  August 12, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-15535 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 64077-64078]
[DOCID:fr14no07-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2007-0412; FRL-8494-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Cross-Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
Rule (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2002.04, OMB Control No. 2025-0003

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 14,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2007-0412, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, OEI Docket, Mail Code:
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrail Holloway, Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule, Information Exchange &
Services Division, Office of Environmental Information, 2823T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-1684; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 15, 2007, (72 FR 33216), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no additional comments on
the renewal, during the comment period. Any

additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2007-0412, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Docket in the EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is
202-566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Cross-Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2002.04, OMB Control Number 2025-0003.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The scope of this Information Collection Request will
focus on the final electronic reporting components of CROMERRR, which
is designed to allow EPA to comply with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act of 1998; to provide a uniform, technology-neutral
framework for electronic reporting across all EPA programs; to allow
EPA programs to offer electronic reporting as they become ready for
CROMERRR; and to provide states with a streamlined process--together
with uniform set of criteria--for approval of their electronic
reporting provisions for all their EPA-authorized programs. Responses
to the collection of information are voluntary. In order to accommodate
CBI, the information collected must be in accordance with the
confidentiality regulations set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.
Additionally, EPA will ensure that the information collection
procedures comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the OMB Circular
108.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.69
per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State and Local Receiving Systems.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 220,826.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 151,963.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $10,763,740 which includes $4,450,658
annualized Capital Startup Costs, $657,707 annualized Operating and
Maintenance (O&M) costs and $5,655,374 annualized Labor Costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no significant change in the ICR
compared to the previous ICR. This is due to the regulations having not
changed over the past three years and is not anticipated to change over
the next three years. There is, however, an adjustment in the labor
cost estimate. This is due to the inflation of the labor rates over the
past three years.

    Dated: November 7, 2007.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E7-22225 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47321-47322]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0660; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Petersburg, WV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Grant County Airport,
Petersburg, WV, due to the decommissioning of the Kessel VHF
Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and
cancellation of associated approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations in the area. This action also would update the airport's
geographic coordinates.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2020-0660; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-12, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Grant County Airport, Petersburg,
WV, to support IFR operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2020-0660 and Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-12) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2020-0660 Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-12.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Grant County Airport, Petersburg,
WV, by eliminating two extensions, and increasing the radius from 6.3
miles to 14.2 miles. In addition, the FAA proposes to update the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, 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.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, is
amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AEA WV E5 Petersburg, WV [Amended]

Grant County Airport, WV
    (Lat. 38[deg]59'42'' N, long. 79[deg]08'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the
surface of the earth within a 14.2-mile radius of Grant County
Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 30, 2020.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-16921 Filed 8-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                               October 23, 2018

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENVER, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/region08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Ref: 8P-AR

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	PM10 24-hour Design Concentration for Missoula Montana

FROM:	Ethan L. Brown
		Physical Scientist

TO: 		File

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has indicated that they would like to redesignate the Missoula County Partial PM10 nonattainment area (NAA) using the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas (NAA). According to the LMP memo, to qualify for the LMP option, "an area should meet the following applicability criteria. The area should be attaining the NAAQS and the average PM10 design value for the area, based upon the most recent 5 years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at or below 40 μg/m[3] for the annual and 98 μg/m[3] for the 24-hr PM10 NAAQS with no violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area." Since the annual PM10 NAAQS has been revoked, it is no longer an appropriate metric, but the other two requirements must still be met.

The Missoula County Partial PM10 NAA currently has one PM10 monitoring site, Boyd Park, located in the southern portion of the town of Missoula. The most recent five years of Boyd Park PM10 data in the EPA air pollution database Air Quality System (AQS) show six exceedances, two in 2015, and four in 2017. All six values have been flagged (in AQS) as exceptional events (EEs) due to wildfire smoke. In addition to these exceedances, there are multiple values between 98 μg/m[3] and 155 μg/m[3] that are flagged as wildfire-smoke impacted. All of these flagged values are included in two Montana DEQ EE demonstrations, one for 2015-2016 24-hour PM10 events, and one for 2017 24-hour PM10 events, and have been approved by EPA.

The methods for calculating design values (or design concentrations) for PM10 are presented in a document entitled the "PM10 SIP Development Guideline", EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987. These guidelines state that the design concentration for a particular year is determined by analyzing three years of monitoring data. Therefore, for a five-year period, one is able to calculate three separate 3-year design concentrations, the average of which will be compared to the 98 μg/m[3] threshold for LMP eligibility.

There are multiple methods for calculating PM10 design concentrations presented in the PM10 SIP Development Guideline. The "Table Look-up" method is the simplest method, and is adequate for this exercise. Using data from 2013 through 2017, the Boyd Park station has three valid 3-year design concentrations. These design concentrations (using the Table Look-up method) are 78, 78, and 86 μg/m[3] in 2015, 2016, and 2017 respectively. Therefore, the average design value from 2013 through 2017 at Boyd Park is 81 μg/m[3].