----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                     Projected       Projected       costs or
                                                                  revenue needed  revenue needed    savings of
                                                                     in 2012 *      in 2013 **       this rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1..........................................................      $2,308,357      $2,404,424         $96,067
Area 2..........................................................       1,614,791       1,569,160        (45,631)
    Total, District One.........................................       3,923,148       3,973,583          50,435
Area 4..........................................................       1,310,549       1,398,694          88,145
Area 5..........................................................       2,600,490       2,596,484         (4,006)
    Total, District Two.........................................       3,911,039       3,995,178          84,139
Area 6..........................................................       2,227,555       2,281,673          54,118
Area 7..........................................................       1,565,906       1,556,517         (9,389)
Area 8..........................................................       1,811,863       1,780,829        (31,034)
    Total, District Three.......................................       5,605,324       5,619,020          13,696
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These 2012 estimates are detailed in Table 18 of the 2012 final rule (76 FR 6351).
** These 2013 estimates are detailed in Table 27 of the NPRM for this rulemaking.
Some values may not total due to rounding.
``Additional Revenue or Cost of this Rulemaking'' = ``Revenue needed in 2012'' minus ``Revenue needed in 2011.''

    After applying the rate change in this rule, the resulting
difference between the projected revenue in 2012 and the projected
revenue in 2013 is the annual impact to shippers from this rule. This
figure would be equivalent to the total additional payments or savings
that shippers would incur for pilotage services from this rule. As
discussed earlier, we consider a reduction in payments to be a cost
savings.
    The impact of the rate adjustment in this rule to shippers varies
by area and district. The rate adjustments lead to a cost in all three
districts, with affected shippers operating in District One, District
Two, and District Three experiencing costs of $50,435, $84,139, and
$13,696, respectively. To calculate an exact cost or savings per vessel
is difficult because of the variation in vessel types, routes, port
arrivals, commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during
navigation, and preferences for the extent of pilotage services on
designated and undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some
owners and operators would pay more and some would pay less depending
on the distance and port arrivals of their vessels' trips. As Table 37
indicates, shippers operating in all Districts would experience an
increased annual cost due to this rule. The overall impact of the rule
would be a cost to shippers of approximately $148,000 across all three
districts.
    This rule allows the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the statutory
requirements to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great
Lakes--ensuring proper pilot compensation.
    Alternatively, if we were to impose the new rates based on the new
contract data from AMOU, there would be a nearly 16 percent decrease in
rates across the system. This would have a dramatically different
effect on industry, moving from a proposed cost to shippers of
approximately $148,000 to a cost savings of approximately $1.7 million.
Table 38 shows the difference in projected 2012 expenses as compared to
projected 2013 expenses based on the new AMOU contract information.

    Table 38--Alternative Rate Adjustment and Additional Impact of the Rule by Area and District ($U.S.; Non-
                                                   Discounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total                           Total        Additional
                                                     projected     Proposed rate     projected      revenue or
                                                    expenses in       change        expenses in    cost of this
                                                       2012                            2013         rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1..........................................      $2,308,357          0.9465      $2,438,897        $130,540
Area 2..........................................       1,614,791          1.0117       1,596,067        (18,724)
    Total, District One.........................       3,923,148          1.6086       2,438,897     (1,484,251)
Area 4..........................................       1,310,549          1.0201       1,284,712        (25,837)
Area 5..........................................       2,600,490          1.0111       2,571,969        (28,521)
    Total, District Two.........................       3,911,039          1.0141       3,856,681        (54,358)
Area 6..........................................       2,227,555          1.0184       2,187,375        (40,180)
Area 7..........................................       1,565,906          1.0116       1,547,878        (18,028)
Area 8..........................................       1,811,863          1.0329       1,754,120        (57,743)
    Total, District Three.......................       5,605,324          1.0211       5,489,373       (115,951)
All Three Districts.............................      13,439,511          1.1404      11,784,951     (1,654,560)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reject this alternative for the reasons laid out in our
discussion of Step 7 in part VI of this preamble.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000
people.
    We expect entities affected by this rule will be classified under
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
subsector 483--Water Transportation, which includes the following 6-
digit NAICS codes for freight transportation: 483111--Deep Sea Freight
Transportation, 483113--Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation,
and 483211--Inland Water Freight Transportation. According to the Small
Business Administration's definition, a U.S. company with these NAICS
codes and employing less than 500 employees is considered a small
entity.
    For the rule, we reviewed recent company size and ownership data
from 2008-2010 Coast Guard MISLE data and business revenue and size
data provided by publicly available sources such as MANTA and Reference
USA. We found that large, mostly foreign-owned, shipping conglomerates
or their subsidiaries owned or operated all vessels engaged in foreign
trade on the Great Lakes. We assume that new industry entrants would be
comparable in ownership and size to these shippers.
    There are three U.S. entities affected by this rule that receive
revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilots'
associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great
Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and
one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated the
same NAICS industry classification and small entity size standards
described above, but they have far fewer than 500 employees; they have
approximately 65 total employees combined. We expect no adverse impact
to these entities from this rule because all associations receive
enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the
projected number of bridge hours and pilots. Additionally, while we are
not required to conduct a full Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
action, we have indicated some potential adverse impacts from
alternative action in our discussion of the analysis performed under
Step 7.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will
affect your small business,

organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr.
Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lake Pilotage, Office of Great Lakes
Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This rule does
not change the burden in the collection currently approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 1625-0086,
Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. Congress directed the Coast Guard to
establish ``rates and charges for pilotage services.'' 46 U.S.C.
9303(f). This regulation is issued pursuant to that statute and is
preemptive of state law as outlined in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C.
9306, a ``State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate or
impose any requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' Because States
may not promulgate rules within this category, preemption is not an
issue under Executive Order 13132.
    Additionally, President Barack Obama's memorandum of May 20, 2009,
titled ``Preemption,'' states that ``preemption of State law by
executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full
consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a
sufficient legal basis for preemption.'' To that end, when a department
or agency intends to preempt State law, it should do so only if
justified under legal principles governing preemption, including those
outlined in Executive Order 13132, and it should also include
preemption provisions in the codified regulation. As currently stated
in 46 CFR 401.120, states, municipalities, and other local authorities
are prohibited from requiring ``the use of pilots or [regulating] any
aspect of pilotage in any of the waters specified in the Act.''
Therefore, this regulation complies with the requirements of the
memorandum.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an
economically significant rule and would not create an environmental
risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect
children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, because
it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action''
under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable
statutory and regulatory mandates and is categorically excluded under
section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction, which
includes regulations that are editorial or procedural. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are
available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR part 401 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 46 CFR
401.105 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

0
2. In Sec.  401.405, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (a), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Basic rates and charges on the St. Lawrence River and
Lake Ontario.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Service                         St. Lawrence River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pilotage.........................  $18.75 per kilometer or $33.19
                                          per mile \1\
Each Lock Transited....................  $416 \1\
Harbor Movage..........................  1,361 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence
  River is $908, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is
  $3,984.

     (b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Lake
                          Service                              Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Hour Period..............................................         $851
Docking or Undocking.......................................          812
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  401.407 revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (b), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.407  Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable
waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Lake Erie
                                             (East of
                 Service                     Southeast        Buffalo
                                              Shoal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Hour Period...........................            $828            $828
Docking or Undocking....................             637             637
Any point on the Niagara River below the             N/A           1,626
 Black Rock Lock........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Toledo or any
                                                   point on Lake
       Any point on or in            Southeast     Erie west of    Detroit River   Detroit Pilot     St. Clair
                                       Shoal         Southeast                         Boat            River
                                                       Shoal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie           $2,339          $1,382          $3,037          $2,339             N/A
 west of Southeast Shoal........
Port Huron Change Point.........       \1\ 4,074       \1\ 4,719           3,060           2,381           1,693
St. Clair River.................       \1\ 4,074             N/A           3,060           3,060           1,382
Detroit or Windsor or the                  2,339           3,037           1,382             N/A           3,060
 Detroit River..................
Detroit Pilot Boat..............           1,693           2,339             N/A             N/A           3,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat.

0
4. In Sec.  401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  401.410  Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior; and the St. Mary's River.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Lakes Huron
                          Service                                and
                                                               Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Hour Period..............................................         $691
Docking or Undocking.......................................          656
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Area                                    De Tour        Gros cap       Any harbor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gros Cap........................................................          $2,583             N/A             N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.....           2,583            $973             N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel            2,165             973             N/A
 Corporation Wharf..............................................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI............................................           2,165             973             N/A
Harbor Movage...................................................             N/A             N/A            $973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Lake
                          Service                              Superior
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Hour Period..............................................         $586
Docking or Undocking.......................................          557
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  401.420  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  401.420 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ``$124'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$126''; and remove the text ``$1,942'' and add, in its
place, the text ``$1,972'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the text ``$124'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$126''; and remove the text ``$1,942'' and add, in its
place, the text ``$1,972''; and
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the text ``$733'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$744''; and in paragraph (c)(3), remove the text ``$124''
and add, in its place, the text ``$126'', and remove the text
``$1,942'' and add, in its place, the text ``$1,972''.

Sec.  401.428  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  401.428, remove the text ``$748'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$744''.

    Dated: February 20, 2013.
Dana A. Goward,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-04321 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31385-31387]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In March
2014, there were five applications approved. This notice also includes
information on two applications, one approved in December 2012 and the
other approved in August 2013, inadvertently left off the December 2012
and August 2013 notices, respectively. Additionally, 10 approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: City of Rochester, Minnesota.
    Kevin Application Number: 13-06-C-00-RST.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $1,698,590.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2017.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: (1)
Nonscheduled/on demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31; (2)
commuter/small certificated air carriers filing DOT Form T-100; and (3)
foreign air carriers filing DOT Form T-100 that do not meet the
threshold requirements for passenger boardings.

    Determination: Disapproved. The FAA found that the public agency
did not provide the information required by regulation to the air
carriers during the air carrier consultation process.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Equipment--vacuum truck upgrades.
    Terminal apron rehabilitation.
    Taxiway rehabilitation.
    Runway intersection rehabilitation.
    Equipment--loader.
    Equipment--plow.
    Taxiway lighting--construction.
    Taxiway lighting--engineering.
    Terminal roof rehabilitation 2010.
    Terminal roof rehabilitation 2008.
    Equipment--vehicle with on-board friction meter.
    Pavement construction--entrance road 2008.
    Equipment--blower.
    Equipment--plow.
    Terminal loading bridge construction.
    Airport geographic information system/FAA survey.
    Master plan phase II.
    Precision approach path indicator lights--construction.
    PFC consultation.
    Decision Date: December 20, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Depottey, Minneapolis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Kenton and Kenton County Airport Board,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Application Number: 13-14-C-00-CVG.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $64,465,657.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2020.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC'S: (1) Part 121
supplemental operators (commuters or small certificated air carriers)
filing DOT Form T-100 that enplane less than 1,500 passengers per year
at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG); and (2)
Part 135 air taxi commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 and
operating at CVG.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at CVG.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use At A
$4.50 PFC Level: Taxiway M reconstruction/rehabilitation (taxiway D to
taxiway M2).
    Taxiways T and S rehabilitation.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use At A
$3.00 PFC Level: East service road rehabilitation.
    Equipment purchases--snow removal trucks.
    Equipment purchase--crash truck.
    PFC program administration costs--preparation of PFC application.
    PFC program administrative costs 2013-2017.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use At A $4.50 PFC Level: Runway 18L/36R rehabilitation.
    Determination: The approved amount is less than was requested due
to lower bid costs and additional funding from other sources.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use At A $4.00 PFC Level: Terminal 3 consolidation/reactivation of
concourse A.
    Determination: The FAA determination that portions of the proposed
project were not eligible for PFC funding.
    Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and
Use At A $3.00 PFC Level: Roof replacement--field maintenance (snow and
ice control equipment) building.
    Determination: The FAA determined that only a portion of the
building was needed to store eligible equipment and thus limited the
PFC approval to only that portion of the building.
    Decision Date: August 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Wills, Memphis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Midland, Texas.
    Application Number: 14-07-C-00-MAF.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $2,434,939.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, 2017.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2018.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC'S: Part 135 air
taxi/commercial operators nonscheduled/on demand carriers filing FAA
Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Midland International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection An Use:
Airfield security access control software and cable upgrade.
    Aircraft ramp lighting system improvements.
    Construct runway 16R run-up apron.
    Northwest taxilane extension phase II.
    Decision Date: March 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcelino Sanchez, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: International Falls/Koochiching County Airport
Commission, International Falls, Minnesota.
    Application Number: 14-05-C-00-INL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $835,639.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2015.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2033.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC'S: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection And Use: PFC
administration.
    Terminal design, construction, and administration.
    Terminal baggage claim area and equipment.
    Decision Date: March 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Nistler, Minneapolis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Louisville Regional Airport Authority, Louisville,
Kentucky.
    Application Number: 14-08-C-00-SDF.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $5,203,144.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, 2015.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2016.
    Class Of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC'S: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 180-31 with operate at Louisville
International Airport (SDF).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at SDF.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use At A
$4.50 PFC Level: Sound insulation program--phase 3B through phase 7.
    Jet bridge acquisition, rehabilitation and installation of pre-
conditioned air units.

    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use At A
$3.00 PFC Level: PFC implementation and administration costs.
    Brief Description of Withdrawn Project: Runway safety area 11-29.
    Date of Withdrawal: December 11, 2013.
    Decision Date: March 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Wills, Memphis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Emmet, Pellston, Michigan.
    Application Number: 14-13-C-00-PLN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $563,363.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2018.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2024.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC'S: Air taxi
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 that are operating at
Pellston Regional Airport of Emmet County (PLN).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at PLN.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved For Collection An Use:
Construction of parking lot access road.
    Design of new boarding bridges.
    Installation of new boarding bridges.
    Runway pavement markings and crack sealing.
    Taxiway pavement markings and crack sealing.
    Apron pavement markings and crack sealing.
    PFC administration expenses.
    Construction of hangar access road.
    Replacement of airfield guidance signage.
    Replacement of runway end identifier lights on runway 5/23.
    Decision Date: March 17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Porter, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Manhattan, Kansas.
    Application Number: 14-04-C-00-MHK.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision: $2,972,696.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2025.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air taxi operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Manhattan Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection An Use:
Terminal expansion (design).
    Terminal expansion (phase 1--construction).
    Install wildlife fence.
    Decision Date: March 25, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Bridges, Central Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
    Amendment No. city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net    charge  exp.    charge  exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07-06-C-02-LIT Little Rock, AR..        02/25/14     $34,723,804     $38,428,622        11/01/11        11/01/11
04-01-C-02-HNL Honolulu, HI.....        02/25/14      34,802,226      37,307,986        02/01/07        02/01/07
04-01-C-02-OGG Kahului, HI......        02/25/14       6,629,349       7,143,275        02/01/07        02/01/07
04-01-C-02-KOA Kailua/Kona, HI..        02/25/14       2,216,888       2,388,749        02/01/07        02/01/07
04-01-C-02-LIH Lihue, HI........        02/25/14       1,489,763       1,603,219        02/01/07        02/01/07
11-04-C-01-PGV Greenville, NC...        03/11/14       9,589,497       8,731,247        10/01/38        01/01/37
09-05-C-02-HPN White Plains, NY.        03/12/14      10,000,000       1,600,000        10/01/11        06/01/11
11-06-C-01-HPN White Plains, NY.        03/12/14       8,000,000       5,200,000        04/01/13        04/01/13
11-07-C-01-TXK Texarkana, AR....        03/25/14         850,066          18,671        09/01/18        05/01/14
* 04-02-C-01-PAH Paducah, KY....        03/28/14         875,189         875,189        01/01/17       02/01/16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The amendment denoted by an asterisk (*) includes a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per
  enplaned passenger to $4.50 per enplaned passenger. For Paducah, KY, this change is effective on May 1, 2014.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2014.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2014-12679 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 69619-69620]
[DOCID:fr19no08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-13295-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application for
Preliminary Permit Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

November 13, 2008.
    On October 2, 2008, BPUS Generation Development LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
to study the proposed Duffey Lakes Pumped Storage Project. The proposed
project would be located in Snohomish and King Counties, Washington.
The project facilities would be partially located on federal lands
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An expanded Duffey Lakes
as the upper reservoir; (2) an expanded Lake Cavanaugh as the lower
reservoir; (3) a new powerhouse containing four pump/turbine-generator
units with a combined capacity of 1,150 megawatts (MW); (4) a new
intake structure, headrace tunnel, and two tailraces; (5) a new 5.0-
mile-long, 500-kilovolt transmission line, and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 3,293 gigawatt-hours (GWh).
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Jake Tung,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications

(without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing
applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Comments,
motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at  http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13295) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27414 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29768-29769]
[DOCID:fr27my10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1997-D-0008] (formerly Docket No. 1997D-0318)

Guidance for Industry: Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the
Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Revised
Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
(vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products'' dated May 2010. The guidance
announced in this notice provides blood collecting establishments and
manufacturers of plasma derivatives with comprehensive FDA
recommendations intended to minimize the possible risk of transmission
of CJD and vCJD from blood and blood products. This guidance document
amends the January 2002 guidance document of the same title by:
Incorporating donor deferral recommendations for donors who have
received a transfusion of blood or blood components in France since
1980, providing updated scientific information on CJD and vCJD,
revising labeling recommendations for Whole Blood and blood components
intended for transfusion, and recognizing AABB's full Donor History
Questionnaire Version 1.3 as an acceptable mechanism for collection of
donor history information. The guidance announced in this notice
supersedes the guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission
of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
Disease (vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products'' dated January 2002 (2002
guidance), and the draft guidance document entitled ``Draft Guidance
for Industry: Amendment (Donor Deferral for Transfusion in France Since
1980) to ``Guidance for Industry: Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce
the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)
and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by Blood and Blood
Products''' dated August 2006 (2006 draft guidance).

DATES: Submit electronic or written comments on agency guidances at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by
calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic or written comments on the guidance. Submit
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written
comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise S[aacute]nchez, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled
``Guidance for Industry: Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the
Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products''
dated May 2010. This guidance amends the 2002 FDA guidance of the same
title by incorporating donor deferral recommendations as to donors in
France (as announced in the 2006 draft guidance), providing updated
scientific information on CJD and vCJD, revising labeling
recommendations for Whole Blood and blood components intended for
transfusion, and recognizing the use of AABB's full Donor History
Questionnaire Version 1.3 as an acceptable mechanism that is consistent
with FDA requirements and recommendations for collecting donor history
information.
    In the Federal Register of January 16, 2002 (67 FR 2226), FDA
announced the availability of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for
Industry: Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of
Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and Variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products'' dated
January 2002 (the 2002 guidance). The 2002 guidance finalized
recommendations to all blood collecting establishments and
manufacturers of plasma derivatives for deferral of donors with
possible exposure to the CJD and vCJD agents. In the Federal Register
of August 14, 2006 (71 FR 46484), FDA announced the availability of a
draft guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Amendment (Donor
Deferral for Transfusion in France Since 1980) to `Guidance for
Industry: Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of
Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and Variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products''' (the
2006 draft guidance). The 2006 draft guidance was intended to amend the
2002 guidance by adding a donor deferral recommendation for donors who
have received a transfusion of blood or blood components in France
since 1980. Specifically, in the 2006 draft guidance, we stated that we
intended to incorporate the new donor deferral recommendation after
receiving comments on the draft guidance and reissue the revised 2002
guidance as a level 2 guidance document for immediate implementation
(71 FR 46484, August 14, 2006). Upon further consideration, however, we
believe it appropriate to issue the guidance announced in this notice
as a level 1 guidance document.
    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's
current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the

requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR 601.12 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR
606.100 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR Part 600.14 and 606.171 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0458.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may, at any time, submit to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments
regarding the guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or
two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may
submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the
guidance and received comments are available for public examination in
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http:/
/www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 18, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-12696 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47961-47962]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17311]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9052-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed July 27, 2020 10 a.m. EST Through August 03, 2020 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200159, Final, USFS, WAPA, CO, Reauthorization of
transmission line permits, maintenance and vegetation management on
Forest Service lands in Colorado, Nebraska and Utah, Review Period
Ends: 09/23/2020, Contact: Matthew Blevins<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200160, Final Supplement, CHSRA, CA, California High-Speed
Rail: Merced to Fresno Section: Central Valley Wye: Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Review
Period Ends: 09/08/2020, Contact: Dan McKell<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200161, Draft Supplement, BR, CA, Shasta Lake Water Resources
Investigation, Comment Period Ends: 09/21/2020, Contact: David Brick
916-202-7158.
EIS No. 20200162, Draft Supplement, BIA, NV, Arrow Canyon Solar
Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/21/2020, Contact: Chip Lewis 602-379-
6750.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20200111, Draft, CHSRA, CA, Burbank to Los Angeles Project
Section Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2020, Contact: Dan McKell 916-
330-5668. Revision to FR Notice Published 6/26/2020; Extending the
Comment Period from 7/31/2020 to 8/31/2020.

EIS No. 20200135, Draft, CHSRA, CA, California High-Speed Rail: San
Francisco to San Jose Project Section: Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 09/09/2020,
Contact: Dan McKell<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 7/10/
2020; Extending the Comment Period from 8/24/2020 to 9/9/2020.

    Dated: August 3, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-17311 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 67298-67299]
[DOCID:fr28no07-46]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0431; FRL-8339-6]

Mefluidide Reregistration Eligibility Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide mefluidide. The Agency's
risk assessments and other related documents also are available in the
mefluidide docket. Mefluidide is a plant growth regulator that is
applied postemergence when needed. EPA has reviewed mefluidide through
the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the
public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance
reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that
all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilhelmena Livingston, Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0431. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a RED for the pesticide, mefluidide under section
4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Mefluidide is a plant growth regulator that is
applied postemergence when needed. It is used to suppress seed heads
and fruiting, as well as retarding growth to reduce mowing and
trimming. It is registered for use on turf on rights-of-ways, airports,
public and industrial sites, as well as on ornamental plants and
shrubs. Mefluidide can also be used on residential lawns. EPA has
determined that the database to support reregistration is substantially
complete and that products containing mefluidide are eligible for
reregistration, provided the risks are mitigated in the manner
described in the RED. Upon submission of any required product specific
data under section 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the
registration and labeling (either to address concerns identified in the
RED or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final
reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of

FIFRA for products containing mefluidide.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, mefluidide was reviewed
through the modified 4-Phase public participation process. Through this
process, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders and the public to
reach the regulatory decision for mefluidide.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. A comment period is not needed
because all issues related to this pesticide were resolved through
consultations with stakeholders. The Agency therefore is issuing the
mefluidide RED without a comment period.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 19, 2007.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-23094 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25975-25977]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11579]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0188; FRL-9978-79--Region 7]

Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plan; Particulate
Emissions; Limitations and Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on
July 14, 2014, by the State of Nebraska. This proposed action will
amend the SIP to include revisions to title 129 of the Nebraska
Administrative Code, chapter 20 ``Particulate Emissions; Limitations
and Standards''. The revisions make clear that the emission rates in
the rule apply to applicable sources except when a more stringent
Federal rule or limit in a construction permit exists. Other minor
administrative revisions are also being made. Approval of these
revisions will not impact air quality, ensures consistency between the
State and Federally approved rules, and ensures Federal enforceability
of the State's rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2018-0188 to https://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 discussion of all points you wish to make. The 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Crable, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to amend Nebraska's SIP to include revisions to
title 129 of the Nebraska Administrative Code, chapter 20,
``Particulate Emissions; Limitations and Standards''. The revisions
being addressed in this action on chapter 20 were submitted with other
title 129 chapters as part of the July 14, 2014 SIP submittal. EPA took
final action on two title 129 chapters, chapter 1 ``Definitions'', and
chapter 15 ``Operating Permit Modifications; Reopening for Cause''. In
that action, EPA stated it would take action separately on chapter 20.
See 83 FR 14762. EPA is now proposing action on chapter 20. The
revisions to chapter 20 are described below.
    Nebraska revised a clause under the chapter title from
``(EXCEPTIONS DUE

TO BREAKDOWNS OR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE: SEE CHAPTER 35)'' to ``For
exceptions due to breakdowns or scheduled maintenance: see Chapter 35--
COMPLIANCE; EXCEPTIONS DUE TO STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, OR MALFUNCTION'', and
added a space to distinguish between the title and the clause. In
addition, the state removed a footnote to table 20-2 and made it a
stand-alone section numbered 007 which explains how the values in table
20-2 were determined. And finally, the revision added section 008 which
clarifies that the emission rates apply to all applicable sources
unless a more stringent particulate matter emissions rate is specified
in the underlying requirements of an applicable Federal rule or is
specified within a construction permit issued pursuant to title 129.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The revised chapter 20
was placed on public notice, along with other title 129 chapter
revisions on January 6, 2014, and a public hearing was held by NDEQ on
February 6, 2014. No comments regarding chapter 20 were received. The
submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the title 129, chapter 20, SIP revision
submitted by NDEQ on July 14, 2014. We are processing this as a
proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed
action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Nebraska Regulations described in the amendments to 40
CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. 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. 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

 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: May 21, 2018.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart CC--Nebraska

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1420 paragraph (c) by revising the entry for ``129-
20'' in the Table titled ``EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State
  Nebraska  citation                                    Title                                    effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                                                date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    STATE OF NEBRASKA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Department of Environmental Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
129-20...............  Particulate Emissions; Limitations and Standards.......................    5/13/2014  [date of final        .....................
                                                                                publication in the
                                                                                Federal Register]
                                                                                [final Federal
                                                                                Register citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-11579 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68884-68885]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0079]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 24, 2012, Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) has petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance
from certain Federal hours of service requirements for train employees
engaged in commuter or intercity rail passenger transportation
contained at 49 CFR 228.405(a)(3). FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2012-0079.
    In its petition, LIRR seeks a waiver allowing the series of at most
14 consecutive calendar days to reset after a general pick, or after a
large timetable revision. A general pick, as described by LIRR, is a
biannual event allowing train employees to bid on jobs with jobs being

awarded based on an employee's seniority. FRA's current policy only
allows a maximum series of at most 14 consecutive calendar days to
reset at the end of the 14th day, or when an employee does not initiate
an on-duty period for any 2 calendar days within the 14 consecutive
calendar-day series.
    In support of the request, LIRR explained that after the first
general pick, about 20 employees were required to take 1 or 2 workdays
off to avoid violating Federal requirements. As a result, employees
suffered financially, and employee availability was reduced, disrupting
LIRR's ability to provide timely and efficient service for its
customers. LIRR argues that allowing the 14 consecutive calendar-day
series to reset after a general pick, or a large timetable revision,
will prevent any future employee financial losses and disruptions in
LIRR's ability to provide optimum service to its customers.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate Docket Number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/ gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 31, 2012 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 8, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-27863 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P