[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41914-41916]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16032]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0445; FRL-8779-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; SC; Revisions to Definitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC or Department), on April 24,
2020. The SIP revision updates the definition of ``Spec. Oil
(Specification Oil)'' and makes minor updates to formatting and
numbering. EPA is proposing to approve this revision pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and implementing federal regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0445 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include a discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is EPA proposing?

    On April 24, 2020, SC DHEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that includes changes to South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1,
Section I--Definitions, including a revised definition of ``Spec. Oil
(Specification Oil)'' and updates to numbering and formatting within
this regulation.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve these changes pursuant
to the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 24, 2020, SC DHEC also submitted to EPA SIP
revisions to Regulations 61-62.1, Section II--Permit Requirements;
61-62.1, Section III--Emission Inventory and Emissions Statement;
61-62.1, Section IV--Source Tests; 61-62.1, Section V--Credible
Emissions; 61-62.5, Standard No. 2--Ambient Air Quality Standards;
61-62.5, Standard 5.2--Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX); 61-62.5,
Standard 7--Prevention of Significant Deterioration; and 61-62.5,
Standard 7.1--Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR). EPA will
address these SIP revisions in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    SC DHEC has requested incorporation of several changes to South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--Definitions into South
Carolina's SIP. First, SC DHEC's SIP revision proposes minor updates to
numbering and formatting within South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1,
Section I--Definitions.
    Second, SC DHEC proposes to revise the definition of ``Spec. Oil
(Specification Oil)'' at Paragraph 97(a) within the definition of
``Used Oil.'' Specifically, the revised definition of ``Spec. Oil''
would remove the phrase ``Nickel--120 ppm [parts per million]
maximum,'' thus eliminating the nickel specification for ``Spec. Oil.''
In the South Carolina SIP's definition of ``Used Oil,'' ``Spec. Oil''
and ``Non-Spec. Oil'' \2\ are listed as ``[t]wo (2) types'' of ``used
oil.'' Notably, the terms ``Spec. Oil'' and ``Specification Oil'' do
not currently appear anywhere else in South Carolina's SIP outside of
the definition of ``Used Oil.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Non-Spec. Oil (Off Spec Oil)'' is defined as ``[u]sed oil
that does not meet the specification above.'' S.C. Code Regs. 61-
62.1 Sec.  I (97)(b). Therefore, used oil that does not meet the
definition of ``Spec. Oil'' is still considered ``Used Oil.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SC DHEC has indicated that the purpose of its requested change to
the definition of ``Spec. Oil'' in South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1,
Section I--Definitions is to maintain a consistent definition of spec.
oil across South Carolina's various regulatory programs. Specifications
for spec. oil are also contained in 40 CFR 279.11 and in South Carolina
Rule 61-107-.279.11, both of which implement the used oil provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq. Neither 40 CFR 279.11 nor South Carolina Rule 61-107-.279.11
include a specification for nickel in those regulations' respective
used oil specifications and, therefore, South Carolina's proposed SIP
revision would make the definition of ``Spec. Oil'' in South Carolina
Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--Definitions consistent with the used oil
specifications in these other regulations.

III. Analysis of State's Submittal

    As mentioned above, the April 24, 2020, SIP revision includes a
change to the definition of ``Spec. Oil (Specification Oil)'' within
the definition of ``Used Oil'' in South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1,
Section I--Definitions. Because this change would remove the
specification for nickel in ``Spec. Oil,'' it would allow unlimited
nickel content in ``Spec. Oil.''
    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA cannot approve a SIP revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' EPA finds that SC DHEC's proposed updated definition of
``Spec. Oil,'' which removes the specification for nickel in ``Spec.
Oil,'' is approvable under section 110(l) for two reasons. First, this
proposed revision will not interfere with the NAAQS or any other CAA
requirement because the revision has no practical effect. ``Spec. Oil''
does not appear anywhere in South Carolina's SIP other than in the
definition of ``Used Oil'' itself; the definition of ``Used Oil''
describes ``Spec. Oil'' as just one of ``[t]wo (2) types'' of ``used
oil''; and oil that would not meet the definition of ``Spec. Oil'' in
the current SIP-approved version of the rule due solely to nickel
concentrations above 120 ppm would be still be considered ``Used Oil''
under the regulation.\3\ Thus, although the term ``Used Oil'' appears
elsewhere in South Carolina's SIP (such as in the definitions of Waste
and Municipal Solid Waste), changing the definition of ``Spec. Oil''
will have no practical effect, and therefore, satisfies section
110(l).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See footnote 2.
    \4\ Additionally, South Carolina is currently attaining the
NAAQS for all criteria pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, SC DHEC's proposed removal of the nickel specification from
the definition of ``Spec. Oil'' is not inconsistent with CAA section
129 (relating to solid waste combustion) and is consistent with
interrelated solid waste rules codified at 40 CFR parts 241 and 279.\5\
The referenced solid waste rules generally relate to the status of used
oil when used oil is burned for energy recovery. More specifically,
under 40 CFR 241.2, ``used oil which meets the specifications outlined
in 40 CFR 279.11'' are ``[t]traditional fuels'' and are therefore not
solid waste subject to the requirements of CAA section 129. See
generally 76 FR 15456, 15502-06 (March 21, 2011). South Carolina's
revised definition of ``Spec. Oil'' is consistent with these solid
waste rules and, specifically, is consistent with the specifications
for used oil in 40 CFR 279.11, which does not include a nickel
specification. Thus, South Carolina's proposed rule will not interfere
with section 129 of the CAA or any plan promulgated under section 129
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These rules are interrelated because CAA Section 129
specifically references the ``Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.],'' including the definition of ``solid waste''
promulgated pursuant to that act. See CAA Sec.  129(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and General
Requirements, Section I--Definitions, state effective on April 24,
2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4
office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further

Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate into South Carolina's
SIP the aforementioned changes to South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1,
Section I--Definitions, state effective on April 24, 2020. EPA has
determined that these revisions meet the applicable requirements of
Section 110 of the CAA and the applicable regulatory requirements at 40
CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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. This proposed 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 for South Carolina does not have
Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects
on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located
within the state of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian
Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes this action 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,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 22, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-16032 Filed 8-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 60665]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2742-000]

Panda Patriot LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Panda Patriot LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 20, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25517 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20638-20639]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0330]

Ashish Macwan: Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring
Ashish Macwan for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a
person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA
bases this order on a finding that Mr. Macwan was convicted of one
count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States for
conduct relating to the development and approval, including the process
for development and approval, of a drug product and to the regulation
of drug products under the FD&C Act. In addition, the type of conduct
underlying the conviction undermined the process for the regulation of
drugs. Mr. Macwan was given notice of the proposed debarment and an
opportunity to request a hearing within the time frame prescribed by
regulation. Mr. Macwan failed to request a hearing, which constitutes a
waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this action.

DATES: This order is effective April 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory
Affairs (HFC-230), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Element Bldg, Rm. 4144, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335a(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)) permits FDA to debar an individual if it finds
that the individual has been convicted of a conspiracy to commit a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or
approval, including the process for development or approval, of any
drug product or relating to the regulation of any drug product under
the FD&C Act and if FDA finds that the type of conduct that

served as the basis for the conviction undermines the process for the
regulation of drugs.
    On November 30, 2010, judgment was entered against Mr. Macwan in
the United District Court for the District of New Jersey based upon a
plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against
the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for the conviction is
as follows: Mr. Macwan was employed at Able Laboratories, Inc. (Able)
as a chemist in Able's Quality Control Department from in or around
mid-1999 through May 2003. In or around January 2005, Mr. Macwan was
promoted to Assistant Manager in the Quality Control Department and was
responsible for supervising numerous chemists, monitoring the chemists'
compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, as required by
the FD&C Act and FDA regulations. Able developed, manufactured, and
sold several generic drug products, including products for cardiac and
psychiatric conditions and prescription pain relievers.
    From in or around 1999 through on or about May 19, 2005, Mr. Macwan
conspired to cause the introduction and delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of a drug that was adulterated and misbranded, with
an intent to defraud and mislead, contrary to 18 U.S.C. 371, 21 U.S.C.
331(a), and 333(a)(2).
    Mr. Macwan and his coconspirators impaired, impeded, defeated, and
obstructed FDA's lawful government function to approve the manufacture
and distribution of generic drug products by violating Good
Manufacturing Practices; violating Standards of Procedure by failing to
properly investigate, log, and archive questionable, aberrant, and
unacceptable laboratory results so that Able could conceal
improprieties and continue to distribute and sell its drug products;
manipulating and falsifying testing data and information to conceal
from FDA failing laboratory results relating to Able's generic drug
products; creating and maintaining false, fraudulent, and inaccurate
test results to make it appear that drug products had the requisite
identity, strength, quality, and purity characteristics so the drug
products could be distributed and sold to increase Able's sales and
profit; and creating and maintaining false, fraudulent, and inaccurate
data and records to obtain FDA approval to market new product lines.
    In furtherance of the conspiracy, in or around September 2003, Mr.
Macwan falsified and manipulated testing data relating to the finished
product testing for acetaminophen with codeine phosphate, a
prescription pain relieving drug product. In addition, in or around
September 2003, Mr. Macwan and his coconspirators falsified and
manipulated testing data relating to the finished product testing for
phentermine hydrochloride, a prescription drug developed to treat
obesity.
    As a result of his conviction, on December 20, 2011, FDA sent Mr.
Macwan a notice by certified mail proposing to debar him for 5 years
from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on
a finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act, that Mr.
Macwan was convicted of a conspiracy under Federal law for conduct
relating to the development and approval, including the process for
development and approval of a drug product, and to the regulation of
drug products under the FD&C Act, and the conduct that served as a
basis for the conviction undermined the process for the regulation of
drugs. The proposal also offered Mr. Macwan an opportunity to request a
hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter
in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a
hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of
any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Macwan failed to request a
hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and, therefore,
has waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions
concerning his debarment (21 CFR Part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of
Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act,
under authority delegated to him (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds
that Ashish Macwan has been convicted of a conspiracy under Federal law
for conduct relating to the development and approval, including the
process for development and approval of a drug product, and to the
regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act, and that the type of
conduct that served as a basis for the conviction undermined the
process for the regulation of drugs.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Macwan is debarred for 5
years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512,
or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
DATES), (see sections 306(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(iii), and 201(dd) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(iii), and 321(dd))). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Mr. Macwan, in any capacity during Mr.
Macwan's debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section
307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Mr. Macwan
provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or
pending drug product application during his period of debarment he will
be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C
Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new
drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Mr. Macwan
during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
    Any application by Mr. Macwan for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2009-N-0330 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Armando Zamora,
Acting Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-8233 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53448-53449]
[DOCID:fr11se06-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and/or Protests

August 31, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Petition for Declaratory Order.
    b. Docket No: DI06-3-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 14, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.
    e. Name of Project: Upper and Lower Waiahi Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Upper and Lower Waiahi Hydroelectric Project is
located on the South Branch North Fork Wailua River, Waikoko Stream,
Waiaka Stream, Iliiliua Stream and Waiahi Stream, Lihue District Lihue
Koloa Forest Reserve near Lihue, Kauai County, Hawaii. The project is
not located on Federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Gary W. Peers, Projects Engineer, Kauai
Island Utility Cooperative, 4463 Pahee Street, Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii,
96766; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry G. Ecton<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: October 2, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the

instructions on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.ferc.gov.

    Please include the docket number (DI06-3-000) on any protests,
comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The project consists of the Upper and
Lower Waiahi Hydro projects. The Upper Waiahi Hydro project includes:
(1) A 37-inch-diameter, 833-foot-long steel penstock, and a 21-inch-
diameter, 21-foot-long steel penstock; (2) a 500-kW Pelton dual runner,
single shaft turbine and a 625-kVA, 2300 V AC generator; (3) a
powerhouse; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The Lower Waiahi Hydro
Project includes: (1) A 37-inch-diameter, 783-foot-long steel penstock,
with 25-inch-diameter, 8-foot-long steel penstock; (2) a 780-kW turbine
and a 1,000 kVA, 2300 V AC generator; (3) a powerhouse; and (4)
appurtenant facilities.
    When a Petition for Declaratory Order is filed with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the
Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate
or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission
also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14958 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7784]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03101]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9942-42-OA]

Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC); Notice of Charter
Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Local
Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) is a necessary committee which is
in the public interest. Accordingly, LGAC will be renewed for an
additional two-year period. The purpose of LGAC is to provide advice
and recommendations to EPA's Administrator on ways to improve its
partnership with Local Governments and provide more efficient and
effective environmental protection.
    Inquiries may be directed to Frances Eargle, Designated Federal
Officer, LGAC, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1301A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: February 4, 2016.
Nichole Distefano,
Associate Administrator, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations.
[FR Doc. 2016-03101 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

	    Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 27, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13449

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no

additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Antonov Design Bureau						Date Filed:  September 24, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to
operate one one-way cargo charter flight from Wilmington, OH, to
Seattle/Boeing Field, WA, during the period September 27-October 2,
2002, using its AN-124 aircraft to transport one outsized GE90-115
aircraft engine and related tooling and components.  Antonov stated that
General Electric Aircraft Engines (GEAE) urgently required delivery of
the first of two GE90-225 flight test certification engines for
installation on a newly designed Boeing-777-300ER airplane that is
scheduled to be completely assembled by November in order to undergo
subsequent FAA certification flight testing, and that timely delivery of
the engine is a critical component of the overall airplane rollout and
certification schedule.  It further stated that the size of the engine,
and the distance involved, forecloses the use of surface transportation
for timely delivery; that in order to avoid undue delays, shipment by
air was essential; and that because of the size of the cargo
transportation on U.S. carrier aircraft was not possible.

Applicant representative:  Sheryl Israel<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Antonov served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operation and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority to Antonov.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).
For examples of earlier grants of authority of this type, see, e.g.,
Order 2001-5-23.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  September 27, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  September 27 - October 4, 2002

Basis for approval:  We found that the application met all the relevant
criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of
this type and that the grant was required in the public interest.
Specifically, we were persuaded that GEAE’s need to transport the
engine without delay to in order to meet scheduled assembly and
certification flight testing deadlines, and the fact that the cargo
could not be transported by other modes in time to meet those deadlines,
constituted an emergency not arising in the normal course of business.
Moreover, based on the representations of the U.S. carriers, we
concluded that no U.S. carrier had aircraft available which would be
used to conduct the operation at issue here.  Finally, we found that the
applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations (see, e.g.,
Notice of Action Taken  dated August 26, 2002, in Docket OST-96-1454).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions (attached) and to the condition that
Antonov comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized
flight.

Action taken by:   	Read C. Van de Water

			Assistant Secretary for Aviation

			   and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

												        Appendix A

FOREIGN AIR CARRIER CONDITIONS OF AUTHORITY

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the holder shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are:

   (a)  based on its operations in international air transportation
that, according to the contract of carriage, include a point in the
United States as a point of origin, point of destination, or agreed
stopping place, or for which the contract of carriage was purchased in
the United States; or

   (b)  based on a claim under any international agreement or treaty
cognizable in any court or other tribunal of the United States.

In this condition, the term "international air transportation" means
"international transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention,
except that all States shall be considered to be High Contracting
Parties for the purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended).

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary of Transportation									        (41301/40109)
7/2002


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20782-20784]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0660; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01561-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Trent 1000 model
turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of excessive
wear on the inner seal fins of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT)
triple seals. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the HPT
triple seal for excessive wear and, depending on the results of the
inspection, replacement of the HPT triple seal and the intermediate-
pressure turbine (IPT) disk, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0660; 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 NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA service information that is proposed for IBR in
this NPRM, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; website:
easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0660.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7241; email: [email protected].

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-2023-0660; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01561-E'' 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
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

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
Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0241, dated December 7, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0241) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain RRD Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent
1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3,
Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-
Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 model turbofan engines. The MCAI states that
occurrences have been reported of finding higher than expected levels
of wear on the seal fins of certain HPT triple seals. The secondary air
system is affected by the resulting increased turbine cooling air
leakage, which changes the air flow around the IPT disk.
    The Modulated Air System (MAS) was designed to optimize cooling air
flow and intended to be active only during cruise conditions, but the
design did not account for a high level of seal wear. Rolls-Royce
issued Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent 1000 75-AK642, Initial
Issue, dated November 30, 2020, to provide instructions for MAS
deactivation, and consequently, EASA published EASA AD 2021-0009, dated
January 8, 2021, specifying deactivation of the MAS control valves.
Despite this, a significantly worn HPT triple seal under flight
conditions, while MAS was activated prior to the above action, could
have reduced the safety of flight.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0660.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0241, which specifies procedures for
inspecting the HPT triple seal for excessive wear and, depending on the
results of the inspection, replacing the HPT triple seal and the IPT
disk.
    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 ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2022-0241 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since
coordinated with other manufacturers and CAAs to use this process. As a
result, the FAA proposes to incorporate by reference EASA AD 2022-0241
in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require
compliance with EASA AD 2022-0241 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are
the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not
mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example,
where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and
compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited
to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in
EASA AD 2022-0241. Service information required by the EASA AD for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0660 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect HPT triple seal.............  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85             $340
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor Cost               Parts Cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT triple seal and IPT disk.........  4 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $737,832         $738,172
                                                $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 above, I certify 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2023-0660;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01561-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by May 22, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD) Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3,
Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent
1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent
1000-R3 model turbofan engines, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0241, dated December 7, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0241).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of excessive wear on the inner
seal fins of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) triple seals. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent excessive wear on the inner seal
fins of certain HPT triple seals. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could lead to a temperature increase at the intermediate-
pressure turbine (IPT) disk rim, possibly resulting in IPT disk
failure and high energy debris release, with consequent damage to
the airplane and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0241.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0241

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0241 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0241.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although EASA AD 2022-0241 specifies to submit inspection
results to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0241, dated
December 7, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0241, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 31, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07182 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7825-7827]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03849]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0304; FRL-9990-12-Region 3]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Health Department,
Withdrawal of Section 112(l) Delegation Authority for the Chemical
Accident Prevention Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the
public that the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) has completed
the regulatory process for voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation
of authority to enforce the chemical accident prevention regulations
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is therefore amending the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) to indicate that ACHD no longer has the
delegated authority to implement and enforce the regulatory
requirements. EPA is also notifying the public that each facility
subject to the previously approved ACHD delegated chemical accident
prevention program is required to maintain continuous compliance with
applicable requirements. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0304. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, authorizes EPA to approve of State, and local, rules and
programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain CAA
requirements, including the chemical accident prevention provisions set
forth at 40 CFR part 68 (Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations). EPA
promulgated the Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations (or risk
management program (RMP) regulations) (RMP regulations) pursuant to CAA
Section 112(r)(7). By letter dated June 15, 2001, ACHD requested
delegation of authority to implement and enforce the RMP regulations
for all sources, among other requests for delegation of other programs.
On January 30, 2002, EPA issued a direct final rule, which became
effective on April 1, 2002, approving ACHD's request for delegation of
authority to implement and enforce EPA's RMP regulations, which had
been adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 68, for all sources within
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, subject to such regulations. See 67 FR
4363 (January 30, 2002).
    By letter dated July 28, 2017, ACHD formally notified EPA of its
intent to voluntarily withdraw from EPA's delegation of authority to
enforce the RMP regulations. On June 22, 2018 (83 FR 29085), EPA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, EPA notified the public that ACHD had
completed the regulatory process for voluntary withdrawal from EPA's
delegation of authority to implement and enforce the RMP provisions of
CAA section 112(r) and proposed a revision to 40 CFR 63.99(a)(39)(v),
codifying the

withdrawal of EPA's delegation of authority.
    The procedures for a State, or local authority, to voluntarily
withdraw from a CAA approved rule, program or portion of a rule or
program are set forth at 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7). In summary, these
regulations and relevant EPA guidance provide that a State, or local
authority, may voluntarily withdraw from an approved delegated program
by notifying EPA and all affected sources of its intent to withdraw and
the specific requirements subject to such withdrawal. Any such
withdrawal is not effective sooner than 180 days after such
notification to EPA. The State, or local authority, must also provide
notice and opportunity for comment to the public. To the extent that
any source that is affected by the withdrawal is also subject to a CAA
operating permit issued pursuant to 40 CFR part 70, the State, or local
authority, must reopen and revise such permit to the extent necessary.

II. Summary of Withdrawal Process and EPA Analysis

    By letter dated July 28, 2017, ACHD notified EPA Region III of its
intent to voluntarily withdraw from EPA's delegation of authority to
enforce the RMP regulations. By letter dated November 9, 2017, ACHD
notified EPA Region III that ACHD announced a public comment period to
take comment on ACHD's voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of
authority to enforce the RMP regulations. The public comment period
extended from November 10, 2017 to December 10, 2017. During this
public comment period, ACHD did not receive any comments in response to
the public comment notification. ACHD provided all applicable
facilities with written notice that ACHD is voluntarily withdrawing
from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the RMP regulations set
forth at 40 CFR part 68.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7), ACHD has determined which
facilities, located in Allegheny County, are subject to the RMP
regulations and have effective CAA Title V operating permits in
accordance with 40 CFR part 70. As of June 22, 2018, sixteen (16)
facilities within Allegheny County had submitted risk management plans
to EPA and ACHD had issued Title V operating permits to twenty-eight
(28) currently operating facilities. ACHD Title V operating permits
incorporate the RMP regulations, set forth at 40 CFR part 68, by
reference. Therefore, each facility, located in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, that is subject to the RMP regulations and has an
effective Title V operating permit has been issued a Title V permit
which includes the proper citation to any applicable RMP regulation.
    Upon a State's or local authority's voluntary withdrawal of a
delegated program, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7), EPA is
required to publish a time for sources subject to the previously
approved State, or local, rule or program to come into compliance with
applicable Federal requirements. Because, as part of its previously
approved delegated program, ACHD incorporated the RMP regulations by
reference, there is no distinction between ACHD's previously approved
delegated program for implementing the requirements set forth at 40 CFR
part 68 and the applicable Federal requirements set forth at 40 CFR
part 68. Furthermore, EPA's delegation of authority to implement the
requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 68 to ACHD stated in relevant
part: ``Although ACHD has primary authority and responsibility to
implement and enforce the . . . chemical accident prevention
provisions, nothing shall preclude, limit, or interfere with the
authority of EPA to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and
information gathering authorities concerning this part of the Act.''
See 67 FR 4366 (January 30, 2002); see also 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7)(iii).
Therefore, all facilities located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
subject to any requirement set forth at 40 CFR part 68 are required to
maintain continuous compliance with such requirement.
    This action does not affect AHCD's responsibilities under Title V
of the Clean Air Act. AHCD must continue to ensure compliance with
Title V applicable requirements, including chemical accident prevention
requirements. See 40 CFR 70.2, 68.215; 58 FR 29310. In addition,
nothing in this action changes any source's obligation to comply with
State or local laws. Affected sources may be subject to duplicative
requirements, including duplicative reporting requirements to EPA and
AHCD. This may include reporting to EPA under part 68, to the Title V
permitting authority under 40 CFR 68.215, and to ACHD under their own
rules. EPA received one set of comments in response to the June 22,
2018 NPRM. The comments did not concern any of the specific issues
raised in the NPRM, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the
proposed approval of ACHD's request. Therefore, EPA is not responding
to those comments.

III. Final Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that ACHD has completed the
regulatorily mandated process, set forth at 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7), for
voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the
Chemical Accident Prevention regulations set forth at 40 CFR part 68.
EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.99(a)(39)(v) to indicate ACHD's withdrawal
from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the chemical accident
prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part 68.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This action notifies the public that ACHD has completed the process
for voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce
the chemical accident prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part
68, and the action updates 40 CFR 63.99(a)(39)(v) to indicate the
withdrawal. The action does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State and Federal law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     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 rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to ACHD's voluntary withdrawal from
EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the chemical accident
prevention regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: February 14, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 63.99 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(39)(v) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.99  Delegated Federal authorities.

    (a) * * *
    (39) * * *
    (v) Allegheny County is not delegated the authority to implement
and enforce the provisions of 40 CFR part 68 and all future unchanged
amendments to 40 CFR part 68 at sources within Allegheny County, in
accordance with the final rule, dated March 5, 2019, effective April 4,
2019.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-03849 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment:FDA-2014-N-0189-0001

Dear Mr. Zeller:

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

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

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I’ve been using them for 5-years with no downsides as compared to regular cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they have improved my quality of life and health. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

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

Respectfully, Craig Wallace <EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 11695]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04423]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74247A; File No. SR-BATS-2015-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13
of BATS Exchange, Inc.; Correction

February 26, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission

ACTION:  Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in
the Federal Register on February 18, 2015, concerning a Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13
of BATS Exchange, Inc.. The document contained a typographical error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher P. Grobbel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 18, 2015 in FR Doc. 2015-3222,
on page 8720, in the first and second line in the subheading under the
heading ``SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'' in the third column,
correct the reference to ``File No. SR-BATS-2014-09'' instead to ``File
No. SR-BATS-2015-09.''

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-04423 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P