SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pesticide Establishment Application, Notification of Registration and Pesticide Production Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (40 CFR Part 167) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) 	Title of the Information Collection

Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-8); Notification of Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments and Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-16).  EPA ICR Number: 0160.10 (Renewal).

1(b) 	Short Characterization/Abstract

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7(a) requires that any person who produces pesticides or active ingredients subject to the Act must register with the Administrator of EPA the establishment in which the pesticide is produced.  This Section further requires that the application for registration of any establishment shall include the name and address of the establishment and of the producer who operates such an establishment.  EPA Form 3540-8, Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, is used to collect the establishment registration information required by this Section.

FIFRA Section 7(c) requires that any producer operating an establishment registered under Section 7 report to the Administrator within 30 days after it is registered, and annually thereafter by March 1st for certain pesticide/device production and sales/distribution information.  The producers must report which types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients, or devices are currently being produced, were produced during the past year, sold or distributed in the past year.  The supporting regulations at 40 CFR Part 167 provides the requirements and time schedules for submitting production information.  EPA Form 3540-16, Pesticide Reports for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, is used to collect the pesticide production information required by Section 7(c) of FIFRA.

Establishment registration information, collected on EPA Form 3540-8, is a one-time requirement for all pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments.  Pesticide and device production information, reported on EPA Form 3540-16, is required to be submitted within 30 days of receipt of the Notification of Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, and annually thereafter on or before March 1.

Attached are copies of:  (1) Forms 3540-8 and 3540-16; (2) instructions for their completion; (3) Section 7 of FIFRA; and (4) 40 CFR Part 167 (1998), to further explain the establishment registration and reporting requirements.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a) 	Need/Authority for the Collection

FIFRA Section 7 states that required pesticide production information be reported annually as required under regulations (40 CFR 167) as the Administrator may prescribe.

2(b) 	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The purpose of this reporting requirement is to obtain pesticide production information.  The EPA requires this information in order to maintain current and complete records of the locations of all pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments.  This information provides an overview of establishments engaged in pesticide activities and allows the Agency to target establishments for inspections with optimal utilization of limited inspection resources.  Such production information permits EPA to trace ineffective, contaminated or otherwise violative products to their source, and minimizes any adverse environmental impact that might arise from the production or distribution of violative products.  If this information were not collected, the Agency would be unable to meet the statutory requirements of FIFRA.

The Office of Compliance (OC) in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) collects the establishment and pesticide production information for compliance purposes and risk assessment.  This information is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement and compliance staffs, the OC, the Office of Civil Enforcement (OCE), and the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) within the   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), other Federal agencies, States under Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, and the public.

EPA Headquarters, Regions and the States use the data for targeting inspection activities, compliance and outreach, and enforcement actions.  Establishment registration and production data are used to:  identify where specific pesticides are made; target inspections in response to tips or complaints of producer violations; determine where violative products found in the marketplace were produced, thus facilitating recalls of problem products; facilitate the issuance of Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders for violative products; help locate production sites of canceled or suspended products; and assist in notifying producers of regulatory actions or requirements.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) 	Non-duplication

No agency besides EPA, nor any other program within EPA, requests this information.  The Agency, under Section 29 of FIFRA, does collect a subset of production data for conditionally registered pesticides only.  However, this production data for conditionally registered pesticides does not fulfill the requirements of Section 7 of FIFRA.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

3(b) 	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

The Federal Register notice required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d) was published November 29, 2011 at 76 FR 73620-73622.

3(c) 	Consultations

One comment was received in response to the Federal Register Notice.  However, EPA was unable to respond promptly to the commenter since the representative did not provide any contact information.  The comment was submitted by a regulatory compliance consulting company affected by this ICR.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   This comment is addressed below.

The private consulting company,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Lighthouse Product Services (LPS), submitted a comment directed toward the application process for requesting and receiving an EPA establishment registration number.  LPS stated that filing an initial report 30 days after the assignment of the establishment registration number is an unnecessary burden of time, when   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 production reports must be filed yearly by March 1st.  This concern is directly answered in Sections’ 1(b), 2, 3(a) and (d) of this Supporting Statement that details the need and use of the data collected under this ICR.

3(d) 	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA Form 3540-8 is a one-time requirement for information used to register pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments.  EPA Form 3540-16 must be submitted by all establishments subject to Section 7 of FIFRA, 30 days after notification of the initial assignment of an establishment registration number, and thereafter on an annual basis.  The statute dictates the time schedule in which reporting must occur.  Therefore, EPA could not carry out the requirements of the statute if EPA collected such data on a less frequent reporting schedule.

Additionally, if the information were not submitted, the EPA would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities relative to the review and registration of pesticides and the protection of human health and the environment.

3(e) 	General Guidelines

None of the reporting or record keeping requirements contained in 40 CFR 167 or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

3(f) 	Confidentiality

The information collected on EPA Form 3540-8 does not involve any confidentiality concerns or sensitive questions.  However, pesticide and device producers must report certain confidential business information (CBI) on EPA Form 3540-16, including the amounts of pesticides/devices produced, sold, and distributed, under FIFRA Section 7 requirements.  EPA safeguards trade secrets in accordance with FIFRA Sections 7(d) and 10.  The Agency’s copies of individual firms’ reports are stored in secure file cabinets within CBI security areas.  Confidential business information pertaining to specific data on any one firm cannot be released to the public.

3(g) 	Sensitive questions

This information collection activity does not involve any questions of a sensitive nature.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) 	Respondents NAICS Codes

Establishments producing pesticide products, pesticide chemical ingredients, and devices are subject to FIFRA.  The six-digit sector/sub-sector United States North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes assigned to the businesses and other institutions participating in this program include primarily Manufacturing, Sectors 31-33; and Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting, Sector 11.

4(b) 	Information Requested

(i) Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded is required by Section 7 of FIFRA and the supporting regulations at 40 CFR 167.  Under this requirement producers of pesticides and devices must report to the Agency annually the amounts of pesticides and devices produced, repackaged, relabeled; the amount sold or distributed in U.S. markets; the amount sold or distributed in Foreign markets; and the amount anticipated to be produced in the following year.

	(ii) Respondent Activities

Read instructions (provided with each EPA Form)

Plan the reporting activity

Gather information

Plan and review information for accuracy

Store, file and maintain the information

During the course of normal business operations, a producer would plan and maintain the information required to comply with this information collection activity, arrange for the collection, review the information for accuracy, and arrange to maintain or store the information.  The information required to be reported is information that the producer would generally maintain as prudent business practices.  The Agency does not specify in the regulation how the data to be gathered must be organized; however, the Agency does supply a reporting form, which provides for the reporting of the required information in a consistent manner.

5.  The Information Collected:  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) 	Agency Activities

In this collection the Agency will:  1) answer companies’ and producers’ questions; 2) will review the data collected; 3) provide appropriate protection of confidential business information; and 4) store collected data both electronically and in paper file system.

5(b) 	Collection Methodology and Management

Producers determine how to best comply with the requirements for record keeping under FIFRA Section 7.  They may collect and store the required data electronically or by paper copy.

The Agency in turn annually provides forms for pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments to report their collected and stored information.

5(c) 	Small Entity Flexibility

The information collected under this ICR does not significantly impact small businesses, since the information being reported is that which their records would be considered as “customary and usual business activities.”  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.  However, even though the record keeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and large businesses, the Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5(d) 	Collection Schedule

The collection schedule established in the regulations at 40 CFR 167.85(d) requires that each producer report pesticide and device production information within 30 days of receipt of the notification of assignment of their establishment number from the Agency; thereafter, each producer is required to report their pesticide production information by March 1st annually.  The Agency will mail out notifications each December reminding producers of the March 1 reporting deadline and providing them with the link where they can obtain the forms online. The notification will also include a phone number for producers to call to request the Agency to mail them the forms, but it is expected that the majority of producers will print out the required forms from the website.

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) 	Estimating Respondent Burden

The estimates for EPA Form 3540-8 are based on discussions with the industry.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The one-time submission of information is of such a nature as to demand no research of company records or calculations; it is easily completed by clerical personnel; and reviewed and signed by a company officer.  The completion of the application rarely exceeds the estimated hourly rate.  See Table 1 for respondent burden estimates.

Burden estimates for EPA Form 3540-16 are based on the results of interviews with a cross-section of industry respondents.  We asked six industry representatives of the respondent universe -- small businesses, firms with multiple establishments, and repackagers -- to estimate the amount of time they typically spent gathering, compiling and filling out information for the report.

From these interviews we learned that, generally, the information is already assembled and compiled so filling out the form involves little burden.  See Table 2 for the respondent burden estimates for EPA Form 3540-16.

6(b) 	Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimating Labor Costs

Since the regulation and associated information collection has a minor economic impact on respondents, a regulatory impact analysis was not conducted.  This ICR uses estimates of labor rates and associated costs based on Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates.  Specifically this ICR uses the May 2010 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for the industry NAICS code 325300 (Pesticide, Fertilizer and other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing), which is presumed to dominate this sector.  The mean hourly wage rates for NAICS code 325300 were:  management, $55.84; technical (engineering), $38.78; and clerical (administrative), $17.23.  A factor of 1.14 was added to adjust for benefit costs, resulting in respective total wage costs of $119.50, $82.99, and $36.87.

Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-8):

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.30 hours (18 minutes) per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing the review and collection of information.

Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-16)

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.43 hour (1 hour and 26 minutes) per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing the review and collection of information.

See Tables 1 and 2 for the respondent cost estimates for EPA Forms 3540-8 and 3540-16, respectively.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

The only type of industry costs associated with the ICR activity in the standards is labor costs.

	(iii) Capitol/Start-up vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

This is not applicable as there are no capital/start-up costs.

6(c) 	Estimate of Agency Burden and Costs

The cost to the Government for the Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-8) is based on one work-year to review and process applications.  Other direct costs are limited to printing costs for instructions and reporting forms, review of the data, mailing costs, etc.  The number of respondents (700) are estimated based on the average annual number of applicants registering establishments over past three year periods.  See Table 3 for Agency burden and cost estimates.

The cost to the Government for the Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments (EPA Form 3540-16) is based on one work-year to review and process production reports.  Other direct costs are limited to printing costs for instructions and reporting forms.  The number of respondents is the number of active pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments registered with EPA (13,830)  See Table 4 for Agency burden and cost estimates.

This ICR consolidated all government labor costs to that of a GS-12 step 1, as the bulk of the work is performed at this level.  The minor shares of burden carried by management and clerical staff have been judged approximately equal and thus balance out if the entire burden is estimated at the GS-12/1 level.

The estimates for Agency costs for EPA Forms 3540-8 and 3540-16 are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

6(d) 	Estimating the Respondents Universe and Total Burden and Costs

As of November 2011, there were 13,830 active pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments registered with EPA.  While the actual number of registered establishments fluctuates somewhat, the average over the past three year period has appeared to stabilize approximately at the present level. For purposes of this ICR, EPA assumes that the number of newly registered establishments in any period of time will approximately equal the number of currently registered establishments going out of business.  The total annual labor costs are $16,395 + $1,528,709 = $1,545,104.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Tables 1 & 2: Respondent Burden.

6(e) 	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Table 1

Respondent Burden Hours and Costs for

Application for Registration of Pesticide-Producing Establishments

(EPA Form 3540-8)

ACTIVITIES

ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS

TOTAL

HOURS

TOTAL

COST

$

Management

Technical

Clerical

$119.50

$82.99

$38.87

a.  Read or Hear Any Instructions

	14

	21

	0

	35

$3,415.79

b. Plan Activities

	0

	0

	0

	0

   $0

c. Create Information

	0

	0

	0

	0

   $0

d. Gather Information

	0

	0

	0

	0

   $0

e. Process, Compile, and Review the Information

	0

	35

	0

	35

  $2,904.65

f. Complete Form(s)

	0

	70

	0

	70

$5,809.3

g. Record, Disclose, Display, or Report the Information

	0

	35

	0

	35

$2,904.65

h. Store, File, or Maintain the Information

	0

	0

	35

	35

$1,360.45

	TOTAL

	14

	161

	35

	210

$16,394.84

Annual Burden Hour total = 210*

Annual Cost total = $16,395*

* assumes 700 responses annually

***NOTE:  Numbers in the Tables (1-4) may vary slightly because of a rounding factor.

Table 2

Respondent Burden Hours and Costs for

Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing Establishments

(EPA Form 3540-16)

ACTIVITIES

ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS

TOTAL

HOURS

	TOTAL

	COST

	$

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Management

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Technical

Clerical

$119.50

$82.99

$38.87

a. Read or Hear Any Instructions

1383

2074.5

0

3457.5

$337,431.26

b. Plan Activities

1383

2074.5

0

3457.5

$337,431.26

c. Create Information

0

0

0

    0

$0

d. Gather Information

0

2212.8

0

2212.8

$183,640.27

e. Process, Compile, and Review the Information

0

2351.1

0

2351.1

$195,117.79

f. Complete Written Form(s)

0

3457.5

0

3457.5

$286,937.93

g.Photocopying Form(s)

0

0

1383

1383

$53,757.21

h. Record, Disclose, Display, or Report the Information

0

0

2351.1

2351.1

  $91,387.26

i. Store, File, or Maintain the Information

0

0

1106.4

1106.4

$43,005.77

	TOTAL

2766

12170.4

4840.5

19,776.9

$1,528,708.75

Annual Burden Hour total = 19,776.9*

Annual Cost total = $1,528,709*

* assumes 13,830 responses annually

***NOTE:  Numbers in the Tables (1-4) may vary slightly because of a rounding factor.

Table 3

Annual Agency Burden/Cost Estimates for

Application and Notification for Pesticide-Producing Establishments

 (EPA Form 3540-8)

	ACTIVITIES

ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS

	TOTAL

	COSTS

	$

a. Respond to Inquiries

1120

 $69,440

b. Review Information for Accuracy

520

 $32,240

c. Record Form Submission and Assign Establishment Number

185

 $11,470

d. Store and Maintain Data

140

 $8,680

e. Prepare Notification

195

 $12,090

	TOTAL

2160

$133,920

Other Annual Agency Costs associated with Table 3:

1.	Postal Mailing Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 590

Other Annual Total Costs . . . . . …... . $ 590

Burden Cost + Other costs are: $133,920+ $590 = $134,510

***NOTE:  Numbers in the Tables (1-4) may vary slightly because of a rounding factor.

Table 4

Annual Agency Burden Cost Estimates for

Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing Establishments

(EPA Form 3540-16)

ACTIVITIES

ANNUAL

BURDEN

HOURS

ANNUAL

COST

a. Preparation of Notification

90

$5,580

b. Respond to Inquiries

1375

$85,250

c. Review Information for Accuracy

1050

$65,100

d. Record and Enter Data into Electronic Database

1060

$65,720

e. Store and Maintain Data

430

$26,660

f. Prepare Annual Solicitation/Mailings

80

$4,960

	TOTAL

4085

$253,270

Other Annual Agency Costs associated with Table 4:

1.	Printing of Notification . . . . . .  $  4,250

2.	Postage Mailing Costs . . . . . . .  $  4,438

      Other Annual Agency Costs  . . . . . . $ 8,688

Burden Cost + Other Costs are: $253,270 + $8,688 = $261,958

$134,510 (Table #3) + $261,958 (Table #4) = $396,468

COMBINED AGENCY BURDEN COSTS FOR THIS ICR = $396,468

***NOTE:	Numbers in the Tables (1-4) may vary slightly because of a rounding factor.

	6(f) 	Program Changes and Adjustments

No program changes occurred affecting the burden estimates of this ICR.  Adjustments to the burden estimates per response resulted from (1) adjustments in the salary computation for industry to reflect current wage scales, (2) adjustments in the salary computation for Agency personnel to reflect current wage scales, (3) adjustments for inflation, and (4) adjustment to the number of respondents.

6(g) 	Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.45 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

	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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0824, which is available for online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:  Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0824 and OMB Control Number 2070-0078 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable to this collection.

( PAGE  13 (


                     U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            Washington, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

                                                                PC Code: 123802
                                                               DP Codes: 403954
                                                               October 22, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:     Fomesafen Drinking Water Assessment for a new IR-4 Use on Cantaloupe, Cucumber, Pea, Succulent pea, Pumpkin, Summer squash, Watermelon, Winter squash, and Succulent soybean (Edamame)

TO:	Barbara Madden, Risk Manager
            Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer
            Registration Division (7505P)

FROM:	He Zhong, Ph.D., Biologist
	Environmental Risk Branch I
		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED  Ed Odenkirchen, Ph.D., Acting Branch Chief
BY:	Sujatha Sankula, Ph.D., Lead Biologist
            Environmental Risk Branch I
	Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Summary
This assessment provides estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) for fomefaen (trade name: Reflex[(R)] Herbicide) in both surface water and ground water in support of human health risk assessments for a new IR-4 use on cantaloupe, cucumber, pea, succulent pea, pumpkin, summer squash, watermelon, winter squash, and succulent soybean (Edamame).  Based on the proposed supplemental label (EPA Reg. No. 100-993), a maximum of 1.5 pts/acre of the formulated product (0.375 lbs a.i./acre or 0.42 kg a.i./ha) may be applied annually preemergence and postemergence as broadcast application by aerial and ground spray in the EPA regions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.  According to the preliminary data from Tier-II PRZM/EXAM modeling and EDWCs for the same application rate from the previous DW assessments for fomesafen on pepper, cotton, soybeans, dry beans, snap beans, potato and tomato (USEPA 2010, DP 373599, 373601 and USEPA 2009, DP365204) at the PCA 0.87, the proposed EDWCs are not expected to supersede the previous upper bound EDWC values (USEPA 2005, DP 322213).  Therefore, EFED continues to recommend the previous upper bound EDWC values for  surface source drinking water concentrations of 34.8 μg/L for peak (acute), 13.1 μg/L for annual average (non-cancer chronic), and 30-year annual average concentration of 6.5 μg/L (cancer chronic).  EFED also recommends using the ground water monitoring concentration of 1 μg/L as the benchmark concentration for fomesafen in ground water source drinking water because it represents actual use conditions of fomesafen on soybeans on a vulnerable soil.

References

USEPA.  2005.  Revised Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for Fomesafen use on cotton, Soybeans, Dry Bean, and Snap Beans.  DP Barcodes: 322213.  pp. 20.

USEPA.  2009.  Drinking Water Assessment for Fomesafen use on cotton, soybeans, dry beans, snap beans, potato and tomato, DP Barcode: 365204.  pp 41.

USEPA.  2010.  Drinking Water Assessment for Fomesafen Use on Pepper.  DP Barcode: 373599, 373601.  pp11


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12934-12936]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-57-000]

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application and
Establishing Intervention Deadline

March 1, 2021.
    Take notice that on February 19, 2021, Mountain Valley Pipeline,
LLC (Mountain Valley), 2200 Energy Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
15317, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting that the
Commission issue an order amending Mountain Valley's certificate of
public convenience and necessity (Certificate) for the Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project (Project).\1\ Mountain Valley requests that the
Commission amend the Certificate to grant Mountain Valley the ability
to change the crossing method for specific wetlands and waterbodies yet
to be crossed by the Project from the open-cut crossings that were
authorized by the Certificate to one of several trenchless methods.
Mountain Valley proposes to use trenchless methods at 120 locations to
cross 181 waterbodies and wetlands that the Commission originally
authorized as open-cut. Mountain Valley is also

requesting authorization for two minor right-of-way shifts to avoid
resources (Mileposts 0.70 and 230.8). Additionally, Mountain Valley
avers no new landowners would be impacted by the changes, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open for public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 161 FERC ] 61,043 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Matthew Eggerding, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 2200 Energy Drive,
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317, by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to
intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 22, 2021.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or
before March 22, 2021.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket
number CP21-57-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below.\3\ Your written comments must reference
the Project docket number (CP21-57-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\4\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is March 22, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. [For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene.] For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-57-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select

the type of filing you are making; first select ``General'' and then
select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature includes a document-less
intervention option; for more information, visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.\7\
Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP21-
57-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail
or email at: 2200 Energy Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317 or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Service can be via
email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \8\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\9\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\10\ A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \10\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 22, 2021.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04580 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73432-73436]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1026; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00745-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2020-13-02, which applies to certain Leonardo S.p.A. Model A119 and
AW119 MKII helicopters. AD 2020-13-02 requires inspecting for movement
and the tightening torque of the tail rotor (T/R) plug, the
installation of the outboard and inboard faces of the T/R duplex
bearing, and the condition of the T/R duplex bearing, T/R plug threads,
and nut threads. Depending on the inspection results, AD 2020-13-02
requires corrective actions and reporting information. Since the FAA
issued AD 2020-13-02, Leonardo S.p.a. issued updated service
information. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2020-
13-02 except the reporting requirement, update the service information,
and require repeating the inspection. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this AD by January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1026; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G. Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1026; Product Identifier
MCAI-2020-00745-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David
Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2020-13-02, Amendment 39-21147 (85 FR 37551, June
23, 2020) (AD 2020-13-02), for Leonardo S.p.A. (Leonardo) Model A119
and AW119 MKII helicopters with a T/R duplex bearing part number (P/N)
129-0160-11-103 installed. AD 2020-13-02 was prompted by EASA Emergency
AD No. 2019-0194-E, dated August 9, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0194-E), which
stated that preliminary investigation of a Model AW119 MKII helicopter
accident identified a disassembled connection between the yaw control
input lever and the rotating input shaft, partial presence of spalling
on the T/R duplex bearing inner races, and missing plug and related
lockwire. EASA advised that this condition, if not corrected, could
lead to functional failure of the T/R pitch change mechanism, resulting
in loss of control of the helicopter. EASA considered EASA AD 2019-
0194-E an interim action and stated further AD action may follow.
    AD 2020-13-02 requires inspecting the T/R plug for movement and its
tightening torque measurement, inspecting the installation of the
outboard and inboard faces of the T/R duplex bearing, and inspecting
the condition of the T/R duplex bearing, T/R plug threads, and nut
threads. Depending on inspection results, AD 2020-13-02 requires
removing the affected parts from service and reporting the inspection
findings to Leonardo. For some of these actions, AD 2020-13-02 requires
following the procedures in Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 119-100, dated August 7, 2019 (EASB 119-
100). AD 2020-13-02 also prohibits installing a T/R duplex bearing
unless it had been inspected. The FAA issued AD 2020-13-02 to prevent
structural failure of the T/R assembly, loss of T/R pitch change
control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2020-13-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-13-02, EASA has issued EASA AD No.
2020-0128, dated June 4, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0128), to supersede EASA AD
2019-0194-E. EASA advises that Leonardo has determined that additional
serial-numbered helicopters are affected by the unsafe condition. EASA
also advises that Leonardo canceled EASB 119-100 and instead included
the repetitive inspections in the maintenance manual (MM). Accordingly,
EASA AD 2020-0128 partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2019-
0194-E and expands the applicability.
    In addition, Leonardo replaced EASB 119-100 with EASB No. 119-105,
currently at Revision A, dated June 3, 2020 (EASB 119-105 Rev A). EASB
119-105 Rev A expands the effectivity by identifying additional serial-
numbered helicopters and omits the long-term and on-condition
repetitive inspections that have been incorporated into the MM.
    AD 2020-13-02 did not require repeating the inspection of the T/R
duplex bearing installation every 200 hours time-in-service (TIS), as
there was sufficient time to allow for notice and comment prior to this
long-term action going into effect. The FAA has determined that
repeating the inspection is needed to address this unsafe condition.
Although Leonardo has added this action to the MM, the FAA must mandate
it through an AD in order to require it for all operators.

Accordingly, the FAA has included this long-term requirement in this
proposed AD.

Comments to AD 2020-13-02

    After AD 2020-13-02 was published, the FAA received comments from
three individual commenters. The following presents the comments
received and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests

    Request: Two commenters requested the FAA update the references in
AD 2020-13-02, as EASB 119-100 has been canceled and EASA AD 2019-0194-
E has been superseded by EASA AD 2020-0128. The commenters proposed
referencing the new EASB 119-105.
    FAA's Response: The FAA agrees. This NPRM reflects the changes
proposed by the commenters.
    Request: One commenter requested the AD allow credit for previous
compliance with either EASB 119-100 or EASB 119-105.
    FAA's Response: The FAA agrees. In this NPRM, the FAA has proposed
to require using EASB 119-105 instead of EASB 119-100. Paragraph (e) of
the proposed AD would require compliance unless already done. Thus, the
proposed AD allows operators to take credit for actions using EASB 119-
105 if done before the effective date of the AD. This NPRM also
proposes to allow credit for previous actions accomplished using the
procedures specified in EASB 119-100.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASB 119-105 Rev A, which specifies a one-time
inspection of the tightening torque of T/R plug P/N 129-0160-45-103,
and a one-time inspection for correct installation of the inboard and
outboard faces of T/R duplex bearing P/N 129-0160-11-103, for damage to
the threads of the T/R plug and nut P/N MS17825-7, and of the T/R
duplex bearing for roughness, ease of rotation, and presence of
brinelling, spalling, chipping, and flaking or traces of overheating of
bearing balls, and general damage to races.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed EASB 119-100, which specifies the same procedures
as EASB 119-105 Rev A, except EASB 119-100 also specifies repeating the
inspection for correct installation of the inboard and outboard faces
of T/R duplex bearing P/N 129-0160-11-103, for damage to the threads of
the T/R plug and nut P/N MS17825-7, and of the T/R duplex bearing for
roughness, ease of rotation, and presence of brinelling, spalling,
chipping, and flaking or traces of overheating of bearing balls, and
general damage to races in conjunction every 200 hours TIS or at any
removal, installation, or disassembly of the T/R duplex bearing.
    The FAA also reviewed Leonardo Helicopters EASB No. 119-105, dated
May 18, 2020, which contains the same procedures as EASB 119-105 Rev A,
except EASB 119-105 Rev A applies to additional serial-numbered
helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all of the inspection requirements
and the installation prohibition of AD 2020-13-02. This proposed AD
would also require repeating the inspection for presence of the P/N and
S/N markings of the outboard and inboard faces of T/R duplex bearing
every 200 hours TIS. This proposed AD would not require reporting any
inspection results.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD is applicable to certain serial-numbered Model A119 and
AW119MKII helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to Model
A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters with a T/R duplex bearing P/N 129-0160-
11-103 installed instead. The EASA AD requires inspecting the
tightening torque of the T/R plug in the range of 30.5-33.9 Nm, whereas
this proposed AD would require inspecting the tightening torque of the
T/R plug to a minimum of 30.5 Nm instead. This proposed AD would
require repeating the inspections for the presence of the P/N and S/N
markings, for rough rotation, brinelling, spalling, chipping, flaking,
evidence of overheated bearing balls, and damage to the races, and for
damaged threads of the T/R plug and nut, at intervals not to exceed 200
hours TIS, whereas the EASA AD does not require repeating these
inspections. The EASA AD requires inspecting the threads of nut P/N
MS17825-7 for damage, but does not state what to do if the threads have
damage. This proposed AD would require inspecting for damage to the
threads of the nut indicated by uneven threads, missing threads, or
cross-threading, and if the nut has any damaged threads, removing the
nut from service.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 89 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that
operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this
proposed AD.
    Inspecting the tightening torque of the T/R plug would take about
0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $3,827
for the U.S. fleet.
    Inspecting for correct installation of the outboard and inboard
faces of the T/R duplex bearing and the condition of the T/R duplex
bearing, T/R plug threads, and nut threads would take about 2 work-
hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $15,130 for the
U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    Assembling and installing the T/R duplex bearing assembly would
take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter
and $15,130 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    If required, the parts for replacing the T/R duplex bearing,
internal spacer, external spacer, bearing liner assembly, and T/R
control rod would cost about $4,200, and parts for replacing the T/R
plug would cost about $171.
    The FAA has included all known costs in this cost estimate.
According to Leonardo, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-13-02, Amendment 39-21147 (85
FR 37551, June 23, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Leonardo S.p.a.: Docket No. FAA-2020-1026; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-00745-R.

(a) Applicability

    This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Leonardo S.p.a.
Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters, certificated in any category,
with a tail rotor (T/R) duplex bearing part number (P/N) 129-0160-
11-103 (T/R duplex bearing) installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as structural failure of
the T/R assembly, possibly due to an incorrect installation. This
condition could result in loss of T/R pitch change control and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-13-02, Amendment 39-21147 (85 FR 37551,
June 23, 2020) (AD 2020-13-02).

(d) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by January 4, 2021.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), remove the lockwire
that secures the T/R plug P/N 129-0160-45-103 (T/R plug) to the
bearing liner assembly P/N 109-0135-16-101 (bearing liner assembly).
Without loosening the T/R plug first, inspect the tightening torque
of the T/R plug by increasing the torque up to 30.5 Nm and inspect
for any movement the moment torque is applied.
    (i) If there is no movement and the tightening torque is at
least 30.5 Nm, before further flight, install lockwire by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, part I, paragraph 4, of Leonardo
Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 119-105,
Revision A, dated June 3, 2020 (EASB 119-105 Rev A).
    (ii) If there is any movement or the tightening torque is less
than 30.5 Nm, before further flight, comply with paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD.
    (2) Within 50 hours TIS, unless required before further flight
by paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 200 hours TIS, inspect to determine whether the P/N and
serial number (S/N) are visible on the outboard and inboard faces of
the T/R duplex bearing by following the Accomplishment Instructions,
part II, paragraphs 4 through 13 (except paragraphs 9.1, 13.1, and
13.2), of EASB 119-105 Rev A. Instead of the excluded steps, do the
following:

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(2):  You are not required to discard
parts and you may use equivalent tooling to that identified in EASB
119-105 Rev A.

    (i) If the P/N and S/N markings are visible on the outboard or
inboard face of the T/R duplex bearing, before further flight,
remove from service the T/R duplex bearing, internal spacer P/N 129-
0160-43-101 (internal spacer), external spacer P/N 129-0160-44-101
(external spacer), bearing liner assembly, and T/R control rod P/N
109-0135-02-101 (T/R control rod).
    (ii) If the P/N and S/N markings are not visible on the inboard
face of the T/R duplex bearing, before further flight, inspect the
T/R duplex bearing, T/R plug, and nut by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, part II, paragraphs 14 and 15 (but not
paragraphs 15.1 through 15.2), of EASB 119-105 Rev A. For purposes
of this inspection, damage to the races may be indicated by non-
movement of the inner race, movement of the outer race, deformation,
roughness, or incorrect installation; and damage to the threads of
the T/R plug and nut may be indicated by uneven threads, missing
threads, or cross-threading.
    (A) If the T/R duplex bearing has any rough rotation,
brinelling, spalling, chipping, flaking, evidence of overheated
bearing balls, or damage to the races, before further flight, remove
from service the T/R duplex bearing, the internal spacer, the
external spacer, the bearing liner assembly, and the T/R control
rod.
    (B) If the T/R plug or nut has any damaged threads, before
further flight, remove from service the affected part.
    (C) Reassemble the T/R duplex bearing assembly by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, part II, paragraphs 16 through 31, of
EASB 119-105 Rev A.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a T/R
duplex bearing P/N 129-0160-11-103 on any helicopter unless you have
complied with the requirements in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) Accomplishment of AD 2020-13-02 before the effective date of
this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(f)(1) and the initial inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD.
    (2) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the procedures specified in Leonardo Helicopters
EASB No. 119-100, dated August 7, 2019, or Leonardo Helicopters EASB
No. 119-105, dated May 18, 2020, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph
(f)(1) and the initial inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD.

(h) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
817-222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office, before operating any
aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters EASB No. 119-100, dated August 7, 2019,
and Leonardo Helicopters EASB No. 119-105, dated May 18, 2020, which
are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information
about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in
this AD, contact Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale
G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di

Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046;
or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view a copy
of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2020-0128, dated June 4, 2020.
You may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(k) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6400, Tail Rotor
System.

    Issued on November 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-25322 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA took a machine reading approach and developed code using R to extract information from certification decision documents from seven certifying authorities (Arkansas, California Water Board of San Diego, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington) that make their certification decision documents publicly available online.  The attachments for New Hampshire are listed in this docket entry.


[Federal Register: July 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 33489]
[DOCID:fr13jy09-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, July
16, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
July 16, 2009 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and
settlement of administrative proceedings; other matters relating to
enforcement proceedings; and opinions.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 9, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16596 Filed 7-9-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45302-45304]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0388; FRL-9705-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the West Virginia
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on August 31, 2011.
These revisions pertaining to West Virginia's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program incorporate preconstruction permitting
regulations for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) into the West Virginia SIP. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions and portions of other related
submissions for the purpose of determining that West Virginia has met
its statutory obligations with respect to the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which relate to West Virginia's
PSD permitting program and are necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions
in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0388 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0388, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0388. 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston,
West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Gordon,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On August 31, 2011, WVDEP submitted a formal
revision to its SIP (the August 2011 SIP submission). The SIP revision
consists of amendments to the PSD permitting regulations under West
Virginia State Rule 45CSR14. This action will replace the current SIP-
approved version of 45CSR14, Permits for Construction and Major
Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, which was previously approved
by EPA on May 27, 2011 (76 FR 30832).
    The SIP revision submitted by West Virginia generally pertains to
two Federal rulemaking actions. The first is the ``Implementation of
the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter less than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (NSR PM2.5 Rule), which
was promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321). The second is the
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule'' (Tailoring Rule), which was promulgated on June 3,
2010 (75 FR 31514).
    Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, section 110(a) of
the CAA imposes obligations upon states to submit SIP revisions that
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new
or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS--the ``infrastructure SIP'' revisions. Although states typically
have met many of the basic program elements required in section
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous
particulate matter (PM) standards, states (including all the EPA Region
III states) were still required to submit SIP revisions that address
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition to the August 2011 SIP submission, West Virginia has
previously submitted SIP revisions addressing requirements set forth in
CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as
well as the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 2008 ozone and lead NAAQS. Because
these SIP submissions addressed West Virginia's compliance with CAA
section 110(a)(2), these SIP submissions are referred to as
infrastructure SIP submissions. These previous submittals, as well as a
technical support document (TSD), are included in the docket for
today's action. The TSD contains a detailed discussion of these
submittals and their relationship to the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2).

A. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new standards
for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator.
Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable particles smaller than
or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for the PM
NAAQS. EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour
standards for PM2.5, setting an annual standard at a level
of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard at
a level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (62 FR 38652). At the time the 1997 primary
standards were established, EPA also established welfare-based
(secondary) standards identical to the primary standards. The secondary
standards are designed to protect against major environmental effects
of PM2.5, such as visibility impairment, soiling, and
materials damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. In that rulemaking action, EPA
reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and
retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\
(71 FR 61236).

B. Implementation of NSR Requirements for PM2.5--the NSR PM2.5 Rule

    On May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated a rule (the NSR PM2.5
Rule) to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including changes
to the NSR program (73 FR 28321). The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
revised the NSR program requirements to establish the framework for
implementing preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5
NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment areas. The 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule also established the following NSR requirements
to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) Require NSR permits to
address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2)
establish significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX); (3) establish PM2.5
emission offsets; and (4) require states to account for gases that
condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 emission
limits.

C. GHG Requirements

    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking action, known as the Tailoring Rule, which established GHG
emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In a letter dated July 30, 2010
(the 60-day letter), West Virginia stated that it could interpret the
current version of 45CSR14 to apply the meaning of the term ``subject
to regulation'' established by EPA in the Tailoring Rule in
implementing the PSD program, but would still pursue rulemaking action
to be consistent with Federal counterpart language. West Virginia has
chosen to adopt changes under West Virginia State Rule 45CSR14
consistent with those incorporated by the Tailoring Rule on June 3,
2010 (75 FR 31514). A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and
the impact on health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's
technical support documents (TSDs) for EPA's GHG endangerment finding
final rule (Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at
www.regulations.gov), as well as the TSD for this current action.
    West Virginia has also included in this revision automatic
rescission provisions for the regulation of GHGs in the event that an
EPA final rule, an act of the United States Congress, a Presidential
Executive Order, a final order of the District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals, or an order of the United States Supreme Court
results in GHGs not being subject to regulation

under the PSD program. EPA's analysis of the approvability of West
Virginia's automatic rescission language is provided in the TSD for
this current action.

D. Infrastructure Requirements Relating to West Virginia's PSD Permit
Program

    With the addition of the requirements for PSD described above, West
Virginia's program contains all of the emission limitations and control
measures and other program elements required by 40 CFR 51.166 related
to the PM2.5, ozone, and lead NAAQS. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the August 31, 2011 SIP submittal and relevant
portions of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the
purpose of determining that West Virginia has met its statutory
obligations relating to its PSD permit program under CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS and 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also making a determination that West Virginia has
met its obligations relating to the PSD permit program pursuant to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997
ozone NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS . As already noted, the
TSD for this action contains a detailed discussion of the relevant
submissions and EPA's rationale for making this determination.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision submitted by WVDEP consists of amendments to the
PSD permitting regulations of Articles 45CSR14. The revision fulfills
the Federal program requirements established by the EPA rulemaking
actions discussed above. The amendments establish the major source
threshold and significant emission rate for PM2.5 pursuant
to the May 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule, and establish thresholds at
which GHGs become subject to regulation under the PSD program pursuant
to the June 2010 Tailoring Rule. Several minor revisions were made as
well in order to be consistent with Federal counterpart language.
    The version of 45CSR14 submitted by West Virginia for approval into
the SIP was adopted by West Virginia on March 18, 2011, and effective
on June 16, 2011. They include revisions to 45CSR14--Permits for
Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. Based upon
EPA's review of the revisions submitted by West Virginia for approval
into the SIP, EPA find these revisions to be consistent with their
Federal counterparts. A detailed summary of the NSR PM2.5
rule, the Tailoring Rule, and a list of revisions to the state rule is
available in the TSD.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of the August 31, 2011 submittal finds the regulations
consistent with their Federal counterparts. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve this West Virginia SIP revision. Additionally, in light of
this SIP revision, EPA is proposing to approve the portions of West
Virginia's submissions dated December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, April
3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 which
address the obligations set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the West Virginia PSD permit program.
EPA is proposing to determine that West Virginia's SIP meets the
statutory obligations relating to its PSD permit program set forth at
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS,
as well as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Based on these and previous SIP
submittals, EPA is also proposing to make a determination that West
Virginia has met its obligations relating to the PSD permit program
pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 CAA; 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 proposed rule pertaining to NSR requirements for
PM2.5 and GHGs for the West Virginia SIP 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 18, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-18664 Filed 7-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 49492]
[DOCID:fr23au06-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54327; File No. SR-Amex-2006-47]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 2 Thereto
Relating to the Member Firm Guarantee for FLEX Equity Options

August 16, 2006.
    On May 12, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ to amend Amex Rule 904G(e)(iii) to increase the member
firm guarantee for FLEX equity options from 25% to 40%.\3\ The Amex
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on June 5, 2006 and
subsequently withdrew Amendment No. 1. The Amex filed Amendment No. 2
to the proposed rule change on June 12, 2006. The proposed rule change,
as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on July
12, 2006.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A ``member firm guarantee'' provides, under certain
conditions, a member firm with the ability to cross a specified
percentage of a customer order with its own proprietary order before
specialists and/or registered options traders in the trading crowd
can participate in the transaction.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54104 (July 5,
2006), 71 FR 39374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange,\6\ and in particular with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act.\7\ The Commission notes that under the proposal the member
firm guarantee for FLEX equity options could not exceed 40% of an
order. The Commission has found with respect to participation
guarantees in other contexts that a maximum guarantee of 40% is not
inconsistent with statutory standards of competition and free and open
markets.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42455 (February 24,
2000), 65 FR 11388 (March 2, 2000). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51275 (February 28, 2005), 70 FR 10709 (March 4, 2005)
(File No. SR-Amex-2005-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-47), as amended, is
hereby approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13932 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - October 2007

Compliance and Enforcement National Priority

Indian Country Summary

Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2005 and continuing through FY 2010,
EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and EPA regional
offices are focusing national attention on three areas in Indian
country: (1) improving compliance at public drinking water systems; (2)
improving multimedia compliance at schools; and (3) improving solid
waste management compliance and assessing and closing open dumps.

What is the Environmental Problem?

Pollution of the air, water, and land in Indian country poses
significant threats to the environment and health of members of the 561
federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes), particularly for tribal
members who rely on subsistence and cultural hunting, fishing, and
gathering.  For the thousands of tribal members dependent on the
approximately 800 public drinking water systems in Indian country,
including those that supply drinking water to schools, violations of
health-based standards can result in serious illness, particularly in
infants, the elderly, and those with suppressed immune systems.  Illegal
dumping of solid waste (such as major appliances, construction and
demolition wastes, and household garbage) and hazardous waste (such as
chemicals, pesticides, and medical waste) poses significant threats to
soil and ground water.  Uncontrolled dumps may catch on fire releasing
particulate matter and dioxins into the air and ecosystem, discarded
pesticides and other chemicals may leach into ground water or run off
into surface water and may harbor vectors for disease, including
mosquitoes breeding in tire piles.  Approximately 460,000 children and
staff attend schools and reside in dormitories or campus housing in
Indian country where they may potentially be exposed to health risks
from asbestos, improper storage of chemicals used in school
laboratories, vehicle maintenance operations, fuel storage and on
athletic fields.

Why Are We Addressing Drinking Water, Schools and Solid Waste in Indian
Country?

EPA monitoring data show that public drinking water systems in Indian
country regularly fail to collect required water samples and submitting
required reports and have high levels of reported violation of
health-based regulatory standards.  The lack of monitoring results means
both that the systems are out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) and that EPA is unable to confirm that the water is safe to
drink.  EPA directly implements the SDWA for virtually all of Indian
country as only the Navajo Nation currently maintains primacy.  Through
providing compliance assistance and pursuing enforcement, EPA plans to
increase compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements and
return to compliance those systems with significant violations.

EPA directly implements virtually all federal environmental statutes
applicable to schools in Indian country owned and operated by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (212 schools) and various tribal, state, or local
authorities, and non-governmental entities.  Providing compliance
assistance, conducting inspections, and pursuing enforcement will help
school facilities improve environmental compliance and therefore reduce
potential health risks to students and school staff.

Unregulated dumping of wastes is a pervasive problem in Indian country.
Individuals and entities from on- and off-reservation illegally dump
solid waste, household hazardous waste, and hazardous waste in Indian
country.  EPA is unable to authorize tribes to implement RCRA and is in
many cases the only entity with jurisdiction, enforcement authority, and
the resources to adequately address these issues.  In addition to
providing compliance assistance to tribal environmental programs, EPA
plans to identify and investigate instances of illegal dumping for which
responsible parties can be identified and pursue enforcement to require
cleanup or responsible management.

EPA also plans to conduct an intensive, short-term effort to analyze the
range of compliance assurance and enforcement issues associated with
water quality in Indian country, and the use and application of
pesticides in Indian country.  EPA will use the analysis to determine
whether there are significant compliance issues that may need to be
addressed in the future.

Highlights from the FY 2005-2007 Planning Cycle

In the first 3 years of the Priority, EPA provided annual compliance
assistance to 100 percent of public drinking water systems and over 325
schools in Indian country.  EPA also provided compliance and technical
assistance on solid waste programs to 499 tribes.  EPA conducted 151
inspections of school campuses, including residential and maintenance
facilities.  EPA also addressed over 784 violations and over 300
incidences of significant noncompliance with requirements for public
drinking water systems in Indian country.

EPA also increased the capacity of tribal compliance and enforcement
programs by ensuring the quality of data on federally-regulated
facilities in Indian country, increasing the number of tribal
environmental professionals trained in compliance and enforcement
matters, and increasing the number of tribal inspectors authorized to
conduct inspections on behalf of EPA.

During FY 2005-2007, EPA discussed the Priority with representatives of
tribes and EPA’s National Tribal Caucus and Regional Tribal Operations
Committees.

Final: Indian Country Summary		October 2007

 PAGE

 PAGE   1