[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52606-52609]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21235]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-1047; FRL-9720-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Volatile Organic Compounds; Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving into the Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP) the addition of a new rule that sets limits on the amount of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) in architectural and industrial
maintenance (AIM) coatings that are sold, supplied, manufactured, or
offered for sale in the State.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 29, 2012,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 1, 2012. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-1047, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-1047. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection

Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Contents of Indiana's Rule
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    AIM coatings are generally paints, varnishes, and other similar
materials that are meant for use on external surfaces of buildings,
pavements and other outside structures. On December 7, 2010, the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management submitted to EPA a
request to approve into the Indiana SIP a new rule within Title 326,
Article 8 ``Volatile Organic Compound Rules'' that limits the VOC
content in AIM coatings. The rule is located within the Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) at Title 326 IAC 8-14. Titled ``Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' it consists of seven
sections that include the following components:

(1) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 1 ``Applicability''
(2) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 2 ``Definitions''
(3) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 3 ``Standards for AIM
coatings''
(4) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 4 ``Container labeling''
(5) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 5 ``Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements''
(6) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 6 ``Compliance provisions and
test methods''
(7) 326 IAC Article 8, Rule 14, Section 7 ``Application of traffic
marking materials''

A discussion of each section and its approvability is included in
Section III of this action.

    The VOC limits for consumer products and AIM coatings in 326 IAC 8-
14 are based on a model rule developed by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) establishing VOC limits for adhesives, sealants and
primers. In addition, the limits are at least as stringent as, and in
some cases are more stringent than, EPA's national AIM rule, ``National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings,'' 40 CFR part 59, subpart D. As a result, the new rule at 326
IAC 8-14 is approvable into the Indiana SIP. It should be noted that
Indiana is not an OTC member state. By adopting a rule that mirrors the
OTC model rule, however, Indiana is strengthening its SIP through
enforceable VOC limits for AIM coatings with corresponding
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

II. Contents of Indiana's Rule

    The following is a summary of each section of 326 IAC-8-14
``Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' as
submitted on December 7, 2010, and a discussion of why each section is
approvable into the State's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-1 ``Applicability''

    This section makes 326 IAC 8-14 applicable to any person who sells,
supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures AIM coatings within the
State of Indiana. This section makes clear that AIM coatings that are
sold or manufactured for use outside the State, shipped to other
manufacturers for reformulation or repackaging, or sold in a container
with a volume of one liter or less are exempt. Further, any aerosol
coating product is exempt from this rule. The applicability for the
rule as outlined in this section is consistent with model OTC language,
and therefore is approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-2 ``Definitions''

    This section provides definitions of products, terms, acronyms, and
other language that is unique and/or specific to this rule. This
section is consistent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is
approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-3 ``Standards for AIM Coatings''

    This section codifies VOC limits for each category of AIM coatings
affected by 326 IAC 8-14. This section also includes additional
requirements for certain product categories, including:

--A requirement that containers used to apply or thin AIM coatings
subject to the limits of 326 IAC 8-14 must be closed when not in use.
--Sell-through provisions for affected products that were already
manufactured by October 1, 2011.
--A provision stating that if an AIM coating is subject to two or more
limits in this section, the most restrictive limit applies to the
coating. Certain product categories are exempted, consistent with OTC
and EPA rules for AIM coatings.
--A provision that restricts thinning of AIM coatings that exceeds the
VOC limits set forth in this section.
--A provision that prohibits the application on or solicitation of any
rust preventative coatings for industrial use unless the coating
complies with the industrial maintenance coating VOC limit specified in
this subsection.
--A provision for determining the VOC content limit of an AIM coating
that does not meet any of the definitions for specialty coatings as
specified in this section.

    This section is consistent with the OTC model rule, and therefore
is approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-4 ``Container Labeling''

    This section sets standards for product labeling for AIM coatings
subject to 326 IAC 8-14. Under this section, container labels must
prominently display, among other things:

--The date of manufacture of the AIM coating subject to this rule.
--Clear recommendations for thinning the AIM coating, if necessary, to
meet the VOC limits set forth in this rule.
--A display of the VOC content of the AIM coating.

    This section is consistent with the OTC model rule, and is
approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-5 ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements''

    This section outlines the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that manufacturers of products regulated under this rule must meet.
Manufacturers of products subject to a VOC content limit within 326 IAC
8-14-3 must keep and make available to Indiana or EPA information about
their product, including:

--The name of the product.
--An identifying number for the product, if applicable.
--VOC content of the product as determined by 326 IAC 8-14-6.
--The name or names and chemical abstract service (CAS) number of the
VOC constituents in the product.
--Dates of the VOC content determinations for the product.
--The coating category and applicable VOC content limit of the product.

    These records shall be kept by the manufacturer for no less than
five years and be made available to Indiana for inspection within 90
days of request.

    Manufacturers of products subject to VOC content limits within 326
IAC 8-14-3 must also make available to the State within 90 days of a
request the following distribution and sales information:

--The manufacturer name and mailing address.
--The name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the
manufacturer.
--The name of the product as it appears on the label and the coating
category under which it is regulated.
--Whether the coating is marketed for interior or exterior use, or
both.
--The number of gallons of product sold in Indiana in containers
greater than one liter.
--The actual VOC content and VOC content in grams per liter. If
thinning is recommended, manufacturers must list the actual VOC content
and the VOC content limit after recommended thinning.
--The names and CAS number of the VOC constituents in the product.

    This section also lays out recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for AIM coatings that contain perchloroethylene or methylene chloride.
These requirements state that a manufacturer must provide to the State
certain information about the product sold in Indiana, but within a
shorter response time frame (30 days) than other paragraphs in this
section.
    Manufacturers of recycled coatings must provide the State with
certification of their status as a recycled paint manufacturer, as well
as total sales during the past year to the nearest gallon and the
method used for determining those sales.
    Finally, this section lays out recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for manufacturers of bituminous roof coatings or
bituminous roof primers. Manufacturers of these coatings must, within
30 days of a State request, provide the past year's sales in gallons,
as well as the method used to determine those sales.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section are
consistent with the OTC model rule for these coatings. Therefore this
section is approvable into Indiana's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-6 ``Compliance Provisions and Test Methods''

    This section outlines methods that must be used to determine
compliance with the VOC content limits within 326 IAC 8-14-3. Two
formulas for determining VOC content of an AIM coating are listed: one
of these formulas for most coatings, and a second formula for low-
solids coatings.
    In addition to these formulas, this section codifies EPA and other
acceptable methods available to determine the physical properties of a
coating in order to perform the VOC content limit calculation discussed
above.
    This section also allows the use of alternative compliance
calculations, so long as those calculations are reviewed and approved
in writing by the State and EPA. Finally, this section makes clear that
manufacturers of methacrylate multicomponent coatings used for traffic
markings must use a modification of EPA Reference Method 24 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A. This section is consistent with the OTC model rule
for AIM coatings and is therefore approvable into Indiana's SIP.

326 IAC 8-14-7 ``Application of Traffic Marking Materials''

    This section limits the application of traffic marking materials
during Indiana's ozone season (defined in the rule as May 1 through
September 30) to only coatings that meet the VOC limits set forth in
326 IAC 8-14-3. Further, this section limits field-reacted (non-liquid)
traffic marking materials, or traffic marking materials that cannot be
measured as a liquid at the time of application to 3.6 kilograms per
stripe-kilometer, or 12.2 pounds per stripe-mile. This section is
consistent with the OTC model rule for these coatings and therefore is
approvable into Indiana's SIP.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP Title 326 IAC 8-14 as adopted
by the State of Indiana and as submitted to EPA on December 7, 2010. We
are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this
as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 29, 2012
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by October 1, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective
October 29, 2012.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using

practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 29, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 14, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding a
new entry in ``Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules'' for ``Rule
14. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings'' in
numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indiana                                   Indiana
    citation             Subject           effective date            EPA approval date                Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                   Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                        Rule 14. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-14-1.........  Applicability.........          12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                                                             where the document begins].
8-14-2.........  Definitions...........          12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                                                             where the document begins].
8-14-3.........  Standards for AIM               12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                  coatings.                                  where the document begins].
8-14-4.........  Container labeling....          12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                                                             where the document begins].
8-14-5.........  Recordkeeping and               12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                  reporting                                  where the document begins].
                  requirements.
8-14-6.........  Compliance provisions           12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                  and test methods.                          where the document begins].
8-14-7.........  Application of traffic          12/1/2010  8/30/2012, [Insert page number      ................
                  marking materials.                         where the document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21235 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<TITLE>Contact info for Lead Soil Data</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR>
From: Murphy, Rebecca
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:20
PM
To: Hartman, Pamela; Schoeneck, Liz
Subject: FW: Contact
info for Lead Soil Data

Liz luckily summarized the
contact about the soil samples.  Here it is.

Becky

From: Schoeneck, Liz
Sent: Wed
11/1/2006 6:54 PM
To: Murphy, Rebecca
Subject: Contact info
for Lead Soil Data

Becky,

Contact Info for Sanders Soil Data
Calls:

10-31-06 and 11-01-06 spoke with Charmaine Roche, Environmental
Engineer II, ADEM<PHONE_NUMBER>) about the availability of soil lead sampling
data.  Charmaine said that ADEM does not have lead soil sampling
data.  She said they only have ground water sampling data associated with
the Sanders facility.  Charmaine called the Sanders facility and found out
that they have historical lead soil sampling data from on-site, as well as blood
lead data from workers.  The Sander's contact is Chris Rutherford
334-566-1563.

Liz Schoeneck
ICF International
3200
Chapel Hill/Nelson Hwy. (Hwy. 54)
Suite 208, P.O. Box 14348
Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709

919-406-2687 (phone)

919-406-1537
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Message-----
From:
Murphy, Rebecca
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Schoeneck,
Liz
Subject: FW: Lead data for the Sanders facility

Thanks
Liz!

The facility again is Sanders Lead Company in Troy Alabama (Pike
County) - a secondary lead smelter.

In addition to Zach's request to get
whatever lead soil sample data we can for the facility (one of his last
paragraphs below), we do need to know how to spell her name and what her title
is.

Becky

-----Original Message-----
From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>[<A
href="mailto:Pekar.Zachary<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Murphy, Rebecca
Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>RE:
Lead data for the Sanders facility

Becky,

Here are notes on my
contacts regarding Sanders (it was a sad and
twisted road, but did up-end
some important stones):

6/16
- spoke with Rick Gillam (EPA R4) about
region 4 contacts for Sanders
Lead Co (Pike Co, Troy Al) - gave me two names:
(a) Katie Forney - EPA
permitting<PHONE_NUMBER> and (b) Lael Buttler (miss) -
RCRA coordinator -
section chief for South region - he said that one of them
could point me
towards who to talk to. He also told me that Alabama
is
deligated/authorized, so I will ultimately likely be speaking with
a
state person for this stuff.

6/19 - Katie gave me this state contact
Larry Brown (branch chief for
Alabama state envr dept) -
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(334-271-7886). Sanders
has at least 2 PSD
(prevention of significant deterioration) permits -
should have Title 5 in
works.  LEFT a message with him

6/20 - Sanders Lead Co (Pike Co,
Troy Al) - Lael Buttlerr - called back
- Al is fully authorized (so EPA
doesn’t do stuff for them anymore) -
state contact. He gave me Chip
Crockett's name - supervisor in land
division<PHONE_NUMBER>). He gave me
Chermain Rochett's (engineering
services section)  name as the site
coordinator for Sanders.

8/15 - eventually got Chermain Rochett's (SP?)
number -<PHONE_NUMBER>
(trying to get her)

8/28 Talked with Chermain
and she is looking into BLLs and soil data for
Sanders. Got back to me on
Tuesday (she said there is likely no BLL, but
might be soil lead - she is
searching by hand - I did send her an
e-mail)

9/5 spoke with Chermain
and she told me that her search of available
files on Sanders had not turned
up any recent soil sampling data. Any
data that did exist was from on-site
sampling associated with facility
modifications and did not include sampling
of residential areas.

So, the bottom line is that I ended up speaking
with a contact in the
Land Division of The Al State Dept of the Envir (I was
told this was the
best group to go to for soil lead data and that they would
know about
blood lead data). She is the coordinator for the Sanders fracility
(on
the land division side - probably would be good to have
better
discription of her pervue) - she said there are no data.

I
talked with Deirdre and she suggested that it still would be good to
try and
get whatever we can for Sanders - even if it is older and
on-site in nature
(I agree with her). Go ahead and contact Chermain
again and see what data we
can find.

It would also be a good idea to try and collect data (soil,
blood Pb
etc) on other secondary smelters - it might be worth focusing on the
one
that we will likely be parameterizing TRIM for - if they had soil
data,
that would be a real bonus.

Zach

p.s., sorry for the semi
sketchy notes on these contacts - I should have
gotten better info on who
they worked for (which divisions) - I was
focusing on finding the data, but
should have also kept an eye on
getting good "association info" (who they
worked for),

Zachary Pekar, Ph.D.
Ambient Standards
Group
Office of Air and Radiation,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

"Murphy,

Rebecca"

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To

m>
Zachary
Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

10/25/2006
03:11

PM
Subject

RE: Lead data for the
Sanders

facility

Zach,
Did
you ever receive any information from Alabama about soil measurement
data
near Sanders?  The email below from late August was when you
requested
information from ADEM.

I'm trying to specify which sources we tried to
get measurement data
from for the
report.

Thanks,
Becky

-----Original Message-----
From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>href="mailto:Pekar.Zachary<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:28 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lee,
Rodney (Mark)
Subject: Lead data for the Sanders facility

Shermain
(let me know if I got the spelling right?),

Thanks for taking the time to
round up the data on the Sanders secondary
lead smelter facility. As we
discussed, I am looking for the following
data:

- soil measurement
data for lead, including, if possible, the dates,
depths, and locations
(lat-longs) of the sampling points (as well as the
Pb concentrations)
- if
they are available (although I expect they aren't) - indoor house
wipe
samples characterizing lead in indoor dust
- blood lead measurements for
children living in the vicinity of the
facility

Thanks again for the
help with this and let me know if you have
any
questions,

Zach

Zachary Pekar, Ph.D.
Ambient
Standards Group
Office of Air and Radiation,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


the accuracy of the cost projections which, if inflated
(intentionally or unintentionally), may render the projected profit
margin meaningless. The Exchange acknowledges that this margin may
fluctuate from month to month due to changes in the number of ports
purchased, and that costs may increase.\109\ The Exchange does not
account for the possibility of cost decreases, however. What are
commenters' views on the extent to which actual costs (or revenues)
deviate from projected costs (or revenues)? Do commenters believe
that the Exchange's methodology for estimating the profit margin is
reasonable? Should the Exchange provide a range of profit margins
that it believes are reasonably possible, and the reasons therefor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See id.
    \107\ See id.
    \108\ See id.
    \109\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reasonable Rate of Return. The Exchange states that its
Proposed Access Fees are ``designed to cover its costs with a
limited return in excess of such costs,'' that ``revenue and
associated profit margin . . . are not solely intended to cover the
costs associated with providing access services subject to the
Proposed Access Fees,'' and that a 66 percent margin is a limited
return over such costs.\110\ Do commenters agree with the Exchange
that its expected 66 percent profit margin would constitute a
reasonable rate of return over costs for additional Limited Service
MEI Ports? If not, what would commenters consider to be a reasonable
rate of return and/or what methodology would they consider to be
appropriate for determining a reasonable rate of return? The
Exchange states that it chose to initially provide additional
Limited Service MEI Ports at a discounted price and to forego
revenue that it otherwise could have generated from assessing higher
fees.\111\ Do commenters believe that this should be considered in
the ``reasonableness'' assessment? Do commenters believe it relevant
to an assessment of reasonableness that, according to the Exchange,
the Proposed Access Fees are similar to or lower than fees charged
by competing options exchanges with similar market share? Should an
assessment of reasonable rate of return include consideration of
factors other than costs; and if so, what factors should be
considered, and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See id.
    \111\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Periodic Reevaluation. The Exchange has addressed whether it
believes a material deviation from the anticipated profit margin
would warrant the need to make a rule filing pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Act to increase or decrease the fees accordingly,
stating that ``[a]ny requirement that an exchange should conduct a
periodic re-evaluation on a set timeline of its cost justification
and amend its fees accordingly should be established by the
Commission holistically, applied to all exchanges and not just
pending fee proposals such as this filing,'' and that ``[i]n order
to be fairly applied, such a mandate should be applied to existing
access fees as well.'' \112\ In light of the impact that the number
of ports purchased has on profit margins, and the potential for
costs to decrease (or increase) over time, what are commenters'
views on the need for exchanges to commit to reevaluate, on an
ongoing and periodic basis, their cost-based connectivity fees to
ensure that the fees stay in line with their stated profitability
projections and do not become unreasonable over time, for example,
by failing to adjust for efficiency gains, cost increases or
decreases, and changes in subscribers? How formal should that
process be, how often should that reevaluation occur, and what
metrics and thresholds should be considered? How soon after a new
connectivity fee change is implemented should an exchange assess
whether its revenue and/or cost estimates were accurate and at what
threshold should an exchange commit to file a fee change if its
estimates were inaccurate? Should an initial review take place
within the first 30 days after a connectivity fee is implemented? 60
days? 90 days? Some other period?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Tiered Structure for Additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
The Exchange states that the proposed tiered fee structure is
designed to set the amount of the fees to relate to the number of
ports a firm purchases \113\ and that ``[c]harging an incrementally
higher fee to a Market Maker that utilizes numerous ports is
directly related to the increased costs the Exchange incurs in
providing and maintaining those additional ports.'' \114\ According
to the Exchange, firms that purchase numerous Limited Service MEI
Ports are primarily those that engage in advanced trading
strategies, typically generate a disproportionate amount of messages
and order traffic, and frequently add or drop ports mid-month, and
thus that ``it is equitable for these firms to experience increased
port costs based on their disproportionate pull on Exchange
resources to provide the additional port access.'' \115\ The
Proposed Access Fees would not just increase the previous $100 per
additional Limited Service MEI Port fee, but would progressively
increase the fee up to four-fold (up to $400 per port for seven or
more ports). However, the Exchange has not specifically asserted
that it is, for example, four times more costly to provide the
seventh or more ports. Instead, the Exchange argues generally that
the more ports purchased by a Market Maker ``likely'' results in
greater expenditure of Exchange resources and increased cost to the
Exchange, and that as the number of ports an entity has increases,
certain other costs incurred by the Exchange that are correlated to,
though not directly affected by, port costs (e.g., storage costs,
surveillance costs, service expenses) also increase.\116\ Do
commenters believe that the fees for each tier, as well as the fee
differences between the tiers, are supported by the Exchange's
assertions that it set the tiered-pricing structure in a manner that
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory? Do commenters believe
that the Exchange should demonstrate how the proposed tiered fee
levels correlate with tiered costs (e.g., by providing cost
information broken down by tier, messaging volumes through the
additional Limited Service MEI Ports by tier, and/or mid-month add/
drop rates by tier) to better substantiate, by tier, the
``disproportionate pull'' on the Exchange's resources as a firm
increases the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports that it
purchases and to permit an assessment of the Exchange's statement
that

the Proposed Access Fees ``are solely determined by the individual
Members' or non-Members' business needs and its impact on Exchange
resources''? \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See id.
    \114\ See id.
    \115\ See id.
    \116\ See id.
    \117\ See id.

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \118\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\119\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\120\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \119\ See id.
    \120\ See id.
    \121\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(rejecting the Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations
without sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings
to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised
herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the
Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO.
See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249,
S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by March 15, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 29,
2022.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-05 and should be submitted on
or before March 15, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
March 29, 2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\123\ that File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-05 be, and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \124\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\124\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03655 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18943-18946]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0118]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Volvo Ocean Race Newport; East Passage, Narragansett
Bay, RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI, during the
Volvo Ocean Race Newport marine event from May 17 to May 21, 2018. This
safety zone is intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards
associated with high-speed, high-performance sailing vessels competing
in inshore races on the waters of the East Passage, Narragansett Bay,
RI. Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through,
mooring, or anchoring within this safety zone during periods of
enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP),
Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative or
Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: This rule is effective from 11 a.m. May 17, 2018 through 7 p.m.
May 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0118 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 LT Arthur Frooks, Waterways Management Division, Sector
Southeastern New England, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

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
TFR Temporary Final Rule
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)
because it is impractical to provide and publish an NPRM with a full
comment period. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and persons in the East Passage before, during, and after the
event. It is impractical to publish an NPRM, request comment, and then
publish a final rule as this safety zone must be effective by May 17,
2018.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because, in order to protect persons
and vessels from the dangers associated with the scheduled event, it is
necessary the safety zone is established by May 17, 2018.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Southeastern New England has
determined that the Newport Volvo Ocean Race presents a potential
safety concern to vessels, people, and the navigable waters of the East
Passage of Narragansett Bay in the vicinity of Newport, R.I. This event
is part of a world-wide race and it is expected to generate national
and international media coverage, in addition to spectators on a number
of recreational and excursion vessels. As a result, this rule is needed
to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the East
Passage before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone, in conjunction
with the Volvo Ocean Race Newport, to ensure the protection of the
maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with
large-scale marine events. This safety zone is of similar dimension and
duration to the one established in 2015. The safety zone will extend
from an east-west line across the East Passage of Narragansett Bay at
the Newport Pell Bridge south to the COLREGS demarcation line between
Brenton Pt and Beavertail Pt. The safety zone will be enforced only
during times of actual sailing vessel racing.
    The East Passage of Narragansett Bay is the site of many marine
events each year. As a result, vessel traffic, particularly
recreational vessel traffic, is frequently required to utilize the West
Passage of Narragansett Bay. Accordingly, the West Passage of
Narragansett Bay may be a viable option for recreational vessels as
well as many tug/barge combinations and smaller commercial vessels
during the Volvo Ocean Race Newport.
    Regardless, the Coast Guard anticipates that some commercial and/or
recreational vessels may still need to transit the East Passage of
Narragansett Bay for a variety of reasons, including destination,
familiarity with the waterway, tide restrictions, etc. Vessels may be
able to continue transits through the East Passage, even during
enforcement of the safety zone, as there may be sufficient room for
most recreational vessels, and some commercial vessels, to pass to the
west of the safety zone. Also, the Coast Guard routinely works with the
local marine pilot organization and shipping agents to coordinate
vessel transits during marine events in the East Passage, and will
continue to do so for the entire event to avoid major interruptions to
shipping schedules.

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, this 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.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. We expect the
adverse economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this
regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential
impact will be minimized for the following reasons: the safety zone
will be in effect for a maximum of eight hours each day for five
consecutive days; vessels will only be restricted from the zone in the
East Passage of Narragansett Bay during those limited periods when the
races are actually ongoing; during periods when there is no actual
racing (e.g., racing vessels transiting from the pier to the racing
site, downtime between races, etc.) vessels may be allowed to transit
through the safety zone; there is an alternate route, the West Passage
of Narragansett Bay, that does not add substantial transit time, is
already routinely used by mariners, and will not be affected by this
safety zone; many vessels, especially recreational vessels, will still
have sufficient room to transit the affected waterway; and vessels may
enter or pass through the safety zone with the permission of the COTP
or the COTP's representative.
    Notification of the Volvo Ocean Race Newport and the associated
safety zone will be made to mariners through the Rhode Island Port
Safety Forum, Local Notice to Mariners, event sponsors, and local media
well in advance of the event.

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: owners or operators of vessels intending to transit,
fish, or anchor in the East Passage of Narragansett Bay, RI, during the
Volvo Ocean Race Newport sailing races.
    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 will 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
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide 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
the establishment of a temporary safety zone in conjunction with the
four-day Volvo Ocean Race Newport event and a fifth day reserved as a
``rain date'' should inclement weather delay scheduled races. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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
recordkeeping 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: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 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.T01-0118 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0118  Safety Zone for Volvo Ocean Race Newport, East
Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: From an east-
west line across the East Passage of Narragansett Bay at the Newport
Bridge south to the COLREGS demarcation line between Brenton Pt and
Beavertail Pt.
    (b) Enforcement period. Vessels will be prohibited from entering
this safety zone, when enforced, during the Volvo Ocean Race Newport
sailing vessel racing events each day between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. from
Thursday, May 17, 2018 to Monday, May 21, 2018.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, petty officer, or designated
Patrol Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England (COTP), to act on
his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official
patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via
VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    (2) Official patrol vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (3) Patrol commander. The Coast Guard may patrol this safety zone
under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The
Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by
the call sign ``PATCOM.''
    (4) Spectators. Includes persons and vessels not registered with
the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zone
established in conjunction with the Volvo Ocean Race Newport, East
Passage, Narragansett Bay, Newport, RI. These regulations may be
enforced for the duration of the event.
    (2) Approximately one hour prior to race start time each day of the
event, the Coast Guard will announce via Safety Marine Information
Broadcasts and local media the times and duration of each sailing race
scheduled for that day, including the precise area(s) of the safety
zone that will be enforced.
    (3) Vessels may not transit through or within the safety zone
during periods of enforcement without Patrol Commander approval.
Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no-wake speed, in a
manner which will not endanger participants or other crafts in the
event.

    (4) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or
impede the movement of event participants or official patrol vessels in
the safety zone unless authorized by an official patrol vessel.
    (5) The Patrol Commander may control the movement of all vessels in
the safety zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel,
a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful
directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result
in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (6) The Patrol Commander may delay or terminate the Volvo Ocean
Race at any time to ensure safety. Such action may be justified as a
result of weather, traffic density, spectator actions, or participant
behavior.

    Dated: April 16, 2018.
R.J. Schultz,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2018-09187 Filed 4-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49375-49377]
[DOCID:fr13au10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0704; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-037-AD;
Amendment 39-16389; AD 2010-16-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR and
-300ER Series Airplanes Equipped with GE90-100 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 777-200LR and -300ER series airplanes equipped with GE90-100
series engines. This AD requires replacing the insulation blanket
fasteners of the lower aft cowl of the thrust reverser. This AD also
requires inspecting the oil scavenge tube on the turbine rear frame of
the engine for damage, and replacement if necessary. This AD results
from a determination of insufficient clearance and subsequent
interference between the oil scavenge tube on the turbine rear frame of
the engine and the bolt on the aft cowl insulation blanket of the
thrust reverser. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage and possible
puncture of the oil scavenge tube and consequent oil loss, which could
result in an in-flight shutdown of the engine.

DATES: This AD is effective August 30, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 30,
2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 27, 2010.

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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Boeing has determined that insufficient clearance and subsequent
interference exists between the oil scavenge tube on the turbine rear
frame of the engine and the bolt on the aft cowl insulation blanket.
This location could encounter interference under flight loads. Damage
to the oil scavenge tube was confirmed after flight on undelivered
airplanes. Several in-service airplanes had sustained damage (dents,
gouges, or chafing) because of the interference condition. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in possible puncture of the
oil scavenge tube and consequent oil loss, resulting in an in-flight
shutdown of the engine.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0070, dated
November 20, 2008. This service bulletin describes

procedures for replacing the insulation blanket fasteners of the lower
aft cowl of the thrust reverser.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0070, dated November 20, 2008,
specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of an inspection of the
oil scavenge tube on the turbine rear frame of the engine for damage,
and replacement if damage is found, in accordance with General Electric
GE90-100 Service Bulletin 79-0017, dated March 3, 2008.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    No airplanes affected by this AD are on the U.S. Register. We are
issuing this AD because the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design
that could be registered in the United States in the future. This AD
requires replacing the insulation blanket fasteners of the lower aft
cowl of the thrust reverser. This AD also requires inspecting the oil
scavenge tube on the turbine rear frame of the engine for damage, and
replacement if necessary.
    Since no airplanes are affected by this AD, notice and opportunity
for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2010-0704; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-037-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (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) 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-16-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16389. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0704; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-037-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 30,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR and -
300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0070, dated November 20,
2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78: Engine
exhaust.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a determination of insufficient
clearance and subsequent interference between the oil scavenge tube
on the turbine rear frame of the engine and the bolt on the aft cowl
insulation blanket of the thrust reverser. The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to prevent damage and possible
puncture of the oil scavenge tube and consequent oil loss, which
could result in an in-flight shutdown of the engine.

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.

Fastener Replacement

    (g) Within 180 days or 300 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever is later: Replace the insulation blanket
fasteners of the lower aft cowl of the thrust reverser, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-78A0070, dated November 20, 2008.

Inspect and Replace

    (h) Before or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements
in paragraph (g) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the oil
scavenge tube on the turbine rear frame of the engine for damage, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of General Electric
GE90-100 Service Bulletin 79-0017, dated March 3, 2008. If any
damage is found, before further flight, replace the tube, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of General Electric
GE90-100 Service Bulletin 79-0017, dated March 3, 2008.

    Note 1:  For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Margaret Langsted,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0070,
dated November 20, 2008; and General Electric GE90-100 Service
Bulletin 79-0017, dated March 3, 2008; as applicable; to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19293 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77672-77673]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30608]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2013-0565; FRL-9904-58-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Confidentiality Rules (Renewal)

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 February 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2013-0565; to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry F. Gottesman, Agency Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Collection Strategies Division, Office of
Information Collection, (Mail Code 2822T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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 September 6, 2013 (75 FR 59708), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
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-2013-0565, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 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 in 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: Confidentiality Rules (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1665.12; OMB Control No. 2020-0003.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014.
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.
    Abstract: In the course of administering environmental protection
statutes, EPA collects data from ``businesses'' in many sectors of the
U.S. economy. In many cases, ``businesses'' mark the data it submits to
EPA as confidential business information (CBI). In addition, businesses
submit information to EPA without the Agency requesting the
information. EPA established the procedures described in 40 CFR part 2,
subparts A and B, to protect the confidentiality of information as well
as the rights of the public to obtain access to information under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In accordance with these
regulations, when EPA finds it necessary to make a final
confidentiality determination (e.g., in response to a FOIA request or
in the course of rulemaking or litigation, a resubstantiation of a
prior claim, or an advance confidentiality determination), it shall
notify the affected business and provide an opportunity to submit a
substantiation of confidentiality claims. This ICR relates to
information EPA needs to collect to assist in determining whether
previously submitted information is entitled to confidential treatment.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are businesses and other for-profit companies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit, 5 U.S.C. Section 522 Freedom of Information Action.
    Estimated number of respondents: 228.
    Frequency of response: 1 per year.
    Total estimated burden: 1533 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $139,514 includes $0 annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: EPA as part of the ICR renewal process
obtained usage of each of the letters for the past 12 months that
comprise this ICR to obtain up-to-date estimates. EPA found that both
usage and response rates decreased.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-30608 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62817-62818]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0877]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: United States Coast Guard.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will
meet on November 15, 2011, in Houston, Texas to discuss various issues
related to safety of operations and other matters affecting the oil and
gas offshore industry. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: NOSAC will meet Tuesday, November 15, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has
completed its business or be extended based on the level of public
comments.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Hilton Houston NASA Clear Lake,
Discovery Ballroom, 3000 NASA Road One, Houston, Texas, 77058-4322.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the person listed in ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' as soon as
possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Comments must be submitted in writing no
later than November 1, 2011, and must be identified by USCG-2011-0877
and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this Notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    A public comment period will be held during the meeting on November
15, 2011, and speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3
minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the
time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the
individual listed below to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Rob Smith, Designated
Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100
Second Street, SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or Mr. Kevin
Pekarek, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-
5222), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., Stop 7126,
Washington, DC 20593-0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (202) 372-
1926. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The
National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) provides advice and
recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters and
actions concerning activities directly involved with or in support of
the exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources insofar as
they relate to matters within Coast Guard jurisdiction.

Agenda

    The NOSAC will meet, review and discuss reports and recommendations
received from the Medical Evacuation of Injured Divers subcommittee and
the Mississippi Canyon Incident Report subcommittee. The Committee will
then use this information to formulate recommendations to the agency.
    A complete agenda is as follows:
    (1) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum.
    (2) Approval of minutes from the May 19, 2011, meeting.
    (3) Committee Administration.
    a. Introduction of new members.
    b. Nominations for Committee Chair and Vice Chair for presentation
to the Commandant.
    c. Discussion of Committee By-Laws.
    d. DFO announcements.
    (4) Presentation and discussion of reports and recommendations from
the subcommittees on:
    (a) Medical Evacuation of Injured Divers.
    (b) Mississippi Canyon Incident Reports subcommittee, to include
the appointment of a Co-chairman.
    (5) Establishment of a sub-committee to work on the task to
evaluate the requirements for licensing mariners who will man and
operate large OSVs.
    (6) Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) update regarding medical
evacuations from the OCS.
    (7) An update on USCG regulations and Federal Register notices.
    (8) USCG Briefing on Joint Investigation Team for DEEPWATER HORIZON
drilling rig explosion and sinking.
    (9) Update from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation
and Enforcement concerning their reorganization, rules and regulations,
etc. Discussion to include USCG/BOEMRE Memorandum of Agreement OCS-06
and contracting of the National Research Council's Marine Board to
conduct a study on regulating worker safety in connection with the
development of offshore renewable energy on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS).
    (10) EO 13580--Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in
Alaska; USCG and BOEMRE processes involved.
    (11) Updates on International Maritime Organization (IMO)
activities of interest to the OCS community.
    (12) Briefing on the activities of Ocean Energy Safety Advisory
Committee.
    (13) Use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as fuel for internal
engines.
    (14) Period for Public comment.
    (15) Adjournment of meeting.
    A copy of each report is available at the https://www.fido.gov Web
site or by contacting Kevin Y Pekarek. Use ``code 68'' to identify
NOSAC when accessing this material. Once you have accessed the
Committee page, click on the

meetings tab and then the ``View'' button for the meeting dated
November 15, 2011, to access the information for this meeting. Minutes
will be available approximately 30 days after this meeting. Both
minutes and documents applicable for this meeting can also be found at
an alternative site using the following web address: https://homeport.uscg.mil and use these key strokes: Missions>Port and
Waterways>Safety Advisory Committee>NOSAC and then use the event key.
    The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter. A transcript of
the meeting and any material presented at the meeting will be made
available through the https://www.fido.gov Web site.
    The committee will review the information presented on each issue,
deliberate on any recommendations presented in the subcommittees'
reports, and formulate recommendations for the Department's
consideration. The committee will also receive tasking from CDR Rob
Smith, Designated Federal Officer, on evaluating the various
requirements for licensing mariners who will man and operate large
OSVs, and to make recommendations on same.

    Dated: October 3, 2011.
F. J. Sturm,
Deputy Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-26126 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70674-70675]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2374-012; ER10-1533-013.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2016 Updated Market Power
Analysis for the Northwest Region of Puget Sound Energy, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2211-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Wisconsin Electric FERC Electric
Tariff Volume No. 9-2016 Compliance filing to be effective 9/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-24-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-DOM IA RS No. 196 Sedge-
Hill Concurrence Filing to be effective 9/28/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-25-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC SFA
to be effective 10/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-26-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Modification Pursuant to Order
No. 828 to be effective 10/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-27-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Revisions Attachments N and O
to be effective 10/14/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-28-000.
    Applicants: Elizabethtown Energy, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff for Elizabethtown Energy to be effective 10/7/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-29-000.
    Applicants: Lumberton Energy, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff for Lumberton Energy to be effective 10/7/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-30-000.
    Applicants: Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC, Kingman Wind Energy II,
LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC
and Kingman Wind Energy II, LLC SFA to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20161005-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: October 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24761 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P