[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36528-36529]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1995-000]

K Road Modesto Solar 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
K Road Modesto Solar 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 July 5, 2012.
    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
14 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 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: June 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14883 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 16389]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Electric Quarterly Report Users Group Meeting

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service              RM01-8-000
 Agreements..........................................
Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section        RM10-12-000
 220 of the Federal Power Act........................
Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process         RM12-3-000
Electric Quarterly Reports...........................      ER02-2001-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on May 16, 2017, staff of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold an Electric Quarterly
Report (EQR) Users Group meeting. The meeting will take place from 1:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST), in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. All interested persons are invited to
attend. For those unable to attend in person, access to the meeting
will be available via webcast.
    This meeting will provide a forum for dialogue between Commission
staff and EQR users to discuss potential improvements to the EQR
program and the EQR filing process. Please note that matters pending
before the Commission and subject to ex parte limitations cannot be
discussed at this meeting. An agenda of the meeting will be provided in
a subsequent notice.
    Due to the nature of the discussion, those interested in actively
participating in the discussion are encouraged to attend in person. All
interested persons (whether attending in person or via webcast) are
asked to register online at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-16-17-form.asp. There is no registration fee. Anyone
with Internet access who wants to listen to the meeting can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events, locating the EQR Users
Group Meeting on the Calendar, and clicking on the link to the webcast.
The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference
and they can email questions during the meeting to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Those who would like to participate in the discussion by telephone
during the meeting should send a request for a telephone line to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on May 9, 2017 with the
subject line: EQR Users Group Meeting Teleconference Request.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about the EQR Users Group meeting, please
contact Don Callow of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202)
502-8838, or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 29, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06616 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/01/2008 10:57 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"Beck, Nancy"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lee, Amanda I." <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Fraas, Arthur G." <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Yes, 11:15 is fine.  Should I set up a call-in number so Jennifer and the RTP folks can tie-in?  Let's plan on using 4407 unless I hear otherwise from you.

-----"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beck, Nancy" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 05/01/2008 10:34AM

cc: "Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia et al,

How about a short 11:15 am conversation, agenda items below.  Could Zack pls invite Jennifer Seed from OPPTS?  Maria Doa is on travel, but it sounds like Jennifer is available at that time. Perhaps Mike and Charlotte to reach out to Fred, the OPPTS OPEI lead, as appropriate.

Agenda items:

Lead RRP rule baseline issue (should be quick)

Tables:  Agreed upon edits in Tbl 1 are not reflected in the version we rec’d this morning; Tbl 6 looks good

Dept of Transportation comments – how to resolve

Ratios

Timing of next draft for review preamble

RIA review status

Thanks,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:42 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Fraas, Arthur G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

We have talked to Jennifer Seed and Maria Doa at OPPTS.  They agree with the footnote as written.  They are available to talk with you and us at any time.  When would you like to talk?

-----"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, " Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 05/01/2008 07:33AM

cc: Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

I haven’t heard from OPPTS yet on the LRRP rule language; I’ll keep trying, but if someone else has made contact pls let me know.

Thank you,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:46 AM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: air-to-blood ratio section

We'll plan to discuss this later this morning.

 ----- Original Message -----

  From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Sent: 05/01/2008 12:16 AM AST

  To: Lydia Wegman; " Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName :PersonName" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Cc: Tricia Crabtree; Karen Martin; Robert Meyers; Jason Burnett

  Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia ,

Thank you for this draft.  Two comments:

1.  We failed to note additional or clarified support for the higher ratios.  We remain somewhat uncomfortable with characterizing the science-based support for a ratio of 1:7 as equivalently robust to the science-based support for standards ranging up to 1:6.  I believe we’ll pick up the conversation in the morning.

2.  Questions regarding “reanalysis” and “potentially” on p 4:

More recently, a study of changes in children’s blood Pb levels associated with reduced Pb emissions and associated air concentrations near a Pb smelter in Canada (for children through age six in age) reports a ratio of 1:6 and reanalysis << Did the Agency mean to say additional analysis ??  Our conversation had not left me with the impression that the Hilts dataset has been reanalyzed by the Agency >> of the data by EPA for the initial time period of the study resulted in a ratio of 1:7 (CD, pp. 3-23 to 3-24; Hilts, 2003). [1]   Ambient air and blood Pb levels associated with the Hilts (2003) study range from 1.1 to 0.03 µg/m 3 , and associated population mean blood Pb levels range from 11.5 to 4.7 µg/dL, which are lower than levels associated with the older studies cited in the 1986 Criteria Document (USEPA, 1986).

Sources of uncertainty potentially  << The sentence reads well without “potentially”.  I believe these uncertainties are not potentially related; they were identified by the author as related >> related to air-to-blood ratios obtained from Hilts (2003) study have been identified.

Best regards,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:25 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Fw: air-to-blood ratio section

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2008 11:24PM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 04/30/2008 10:28PM

Subject: air-to-blood ratio section

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park , NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

㜀$␸䠀$葝ᜌ葞ᄬ摧惖äఀƒ

œ

e temporary shutdown of the facility in 2001, including sampling of a different age group at that time and a shorter time period (3 months) at these lower ambient air Pb levels prior to collection of blood Pb levels. Consequently, EPA calculated an alternate air-to-blood Pb ratio based on consideration for ambient air Pb and blood Pb reductions in the first time period (after opening of the new facility in 1997).


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14496-14498]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05056]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0034; FRL-9958-93-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) from boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters. We are proposing to approve
revisions to a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0034 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the 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, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
    D. Public comment and proposed action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency             Rule number              Rule title                Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD.......................            4307  Boilers, Steam Generators, and         04/21/16        08/22/16
                                                  Process Heaters- 2.0 MMBtu/hr
                                                  to 5.0 MMBtu/hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 27, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for
SJVUAPCD Rule 4307 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4307 into the SIP on
February 12, 2015 (80 FR 7803). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved version on April 21, 2016 and CARB submitted them to us on
August 22, 2016.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which
harm human health and the environment. PM, including PM equal to or
less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), contributes to
effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to
submit regulations that control NOX and PM emissions. Rule
4307 contains emission limitations for NOX and PM. It has
been revised to require tree nut pasteurizers to be fired using Public
Utility Commission quality natural gas or Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(LPG). The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each major source of NOX in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour 1997 and 2008
ozone standards (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, this rule must implement
RACT. Additionally, SIP rules must implement Best Available Control
Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in
serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA section
189(b)(1)(B)). The SJVUAPCD regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment
area classified as serious nonattainment for the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (40 CFR 81.305). A BACM and BACT evaluation
is generally performed in the context of a broader plan.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to
the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX
Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.
    5. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document- NOX
Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers''
(EPA-453/R-94-022-1994/03, March 1994).
    6. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology
and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial,
Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters,'' (CARB, July 18, 1991).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with CAA requirements and
relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
The rule is expanding the exemption for tree-nut pasteurizers to
include those fueled on LPG. However, the increased emissions from
these sources will be negligible. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because we

believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal until April 20, 2017. If we take final
action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate
this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SJVUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the 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, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: January 13, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-05056 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16452]
[DOCID:fr01ap10-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-913-000]

Nasdaq OMX Commodities Clearing--Delivery, LLC; Supplemental
Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for
Blanket Section 204 Authorization

March 25, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Nasdaq OMX Commodities Clearing--Delivery, 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 April 14, 2010.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., 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 review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7297 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19054]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257; Notice No. 68]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the forty-sixth meeting of the RSAC, a Federal
Advisory Committee that develops railroad safety regulations through a
consensus process. The RSAC meeting topics will include opening remarks
from the FRA Administrator, and status reports will be provided by the
Track Safety Standards, Critical Incident, Dark Territory, Fatigue
Management, Risk Reduction, Electronic Device Distraction, and
Passenger Safety Working Groups. This agenda is subject to change,
including the possible addition of further proposed tasks under the
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

DATES: The meeting of the RSAC is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday, April 26, 2012, and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Housing
Center, 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting is open
to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, and is accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Sign and oral interpretation can be made
available if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Woolverton, RSAC
Administrative Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mr. Robert C.
Lauby, Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC was established to provide advice and
recommendations to FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC is composed
of 54 voting representatives from 31 member organizations, representing
various rail industry perspectives. In addition, there are non-voting
advisory representatives from the agencies with railroad safety
regulatory responsibility in Canada and Mexico, the National
Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal Transit Administration.
The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite range of views and
expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. See the RSAC Web
site for details on prior RSAC activities and pending tasks at: http://rsac.fra.dot.gov/. Please refer to the notice published in the Federal
Register on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9740), for additional information
about the RSAC.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-7492 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78251-78265]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2000; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00415-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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 Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that some overheat
detection sensing elements of the bleed air leak detection system were
manufactured with insufficient salt fill, which can result in an
inability to detect hot bleed air leaks. This proposed AD would require
maintenance records verification, and if an affected part is installed,
would prohibit the use of certain Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)
items under certain conditions by requiring revising the operator's
existing MEL. This proposed AD would also require testing the overheat
detection sensing elements, marking each serviceable sensing element
with a witness mark, and replacing each nonserviceable part with a
serviceable part. This proposed AD would also prohibit the installation
of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 2,
2024.

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-2023-2000; 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 Bombardier service information identified in this
NPRM, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center,
400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
bombardier.com.
     For Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse SAS service information
identified in this NPRM, contact Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse SAS, 408,
Avenue des Etats-Unis--B.P.52010, 31016 Toulouse Cedex, France;
telephone +33 (0)<IP_ADDRESS>.28; fax +33 (0)<IP_ADDRESS>.29; email:
[email protected]; website: www.liebherr.aero.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the

availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2023-2000; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00415-T'' 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
the 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
Steven Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-17, dated March 8, 2023 (Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-17) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-
1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that Bombardier
received reports from the supplier of the overheat detection sensing
elements of a manufacturing quality escape. Some of the sensing
elements of the bleed air leak detection system were manufactured with
insufficient salt fill. This condition can result in an inability to
detect hot bleed air leaks, which can cause damage to surrounding
structures and systems and prevent continued safe flight and landing.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2000.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Liebherr Service Bulletin CFD-F1958-26-01, dated
May 6, 2022, which specifies part numbers for affected sensing
elements.
    The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier service bulletins, which
specify procedures for testing each leak detection loop (LDL) sensing
element installed on the airplane, marking each serviceable sensing
element with a witness mark, and replacing each nonserviceable part
with a serviceable part. These documents are distinct since they apply
to different airplane models and configurations:
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-36-005 Basic Issue,
dated December 23, 2022;
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-026 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022;
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-5002 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022;
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-5501 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022;
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-6002 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022; and
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-6501 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is 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
and service information 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 the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require maintenance records verification. If
an affected part is installed, this proposed AD would prohibit the use
of certain MMEL items unless specific dispatch instructions are
followed by revising the operator's existing MEL and accomplishing the
actions specified in the service information already described. For
certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require testing each LDL
sensing element installed on the airplane, marking each serviceable
sensing element with a witness mark, and replacing each nonserviceable
part with a serviceable part. This proposed AD would also prohibit the
installation of affected parts under certain conditions.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                    Parts cost           Cost per product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 140 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  $0   Up to $11,900............  Up to $1,904,000.
 Up to $11,900.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates it would take up to 1.5 hours to replace a sensing
element.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed 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:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2023-2000; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00415-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 2, 2024.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 36, Pneumatic.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that some overheat detection
sensing elements of the bleed air leak detection system were
manufactured with insufficient salt fill. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address non-conforming sensing elements of the bleed air leak
detection system. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in an inability to detect hot bleed air leaks and consequent
damage to surrounding structures and systems, which could prevent
continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, the definitions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD apply.
    (1) The following Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplane
groups are identified in (g)(1)(i) through (iv) of this AD:
    (i) Group A airplanes: serial numbers (S/N) 9002 through 9151
inclusive, and 9153.
    (ii) Group B airplanes: S/N 9152, 9154 through 9879 inclusive,
9998, 60001 through 60041 inclusive, 60043, 60044, 60045, and 60051.
    (iii) Group C airplanes: S/N 60042, 60046, 60047, 60049, 60053,
and subsequent.
    (iv) Group D airplanes: S/N 60048, 60050, and 60052.
    (2) An affected part is a sensing element marked with a date
code A0448 through A2104 inclusive and having an LTS/Kidde part
number specified in Liebherr Service Bulletin CFD-F1958-26-01, dated
May 6, 2022, unless that sensing element meets the criteria
specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) The sensing element has been tested as specified in Section
3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Kidde Aerospace and Defense
Service Bulletin CFD-26-1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022, or
earlier revisions, and has been found to be serviceable; and the
sensing element has been marked on one face of its connector hex nut
and packaged as specified in Section 3.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Kidde Aerospace and Defense Service Bulletin CFD-26-
1, Revision 6, dated February 28, 2022, or earlier revisions.
    (ii) The sensing element has been tested and found to be
serviceable as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD; and the
sensing element has been marked on one face of one connector hex nut
with one green mark, as specified in Figure 4 (the figure is
representative for all sensing elements) in the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service bulletin (BA SB)
in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii)--Applicable service information
BILLING CODE 4910-12-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.038

    (3) A serviceable part is a sensing element that is not an
affected part.

(h) Maintenance Records Verification

    For Groups A and C whose airplane date of manufacture, as
identified on the identification plate of the airplane, is on or
before July 27, 2022 (the effective date of Transport Canada AD CF-
2022-38): Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD,
examine the airplane maintenance records to verify whether any
affected part has been installed since the airplane date of
manufacture, as identified on the identification plate of the
airplane.
    (1) If the maintenance records confirm that an affected part has
been installed, or if it cannot be confirmed that an affected part
has not been installed, paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD must be
complied with within the applicable compliance times specified in
paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.
    (2) For Groups A and C airplanes: if the maintenance records
confirm that no affected parts have been installed since airplane
date of manufacture, then paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD are not
applicable.

(i) Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Revision

    For Groups B and D airplanes, and Groups A and C airplanes
required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD, revise the operator's existing MEL by
incorporating the information specified in figures 2 through 8 to
paragraph (i) of this AD, as applicable. This may be done by
inserting a copy of this information into the operator's existing
MEL.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO23.048

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(j) Testing and Replacement of Affected Overheat Detection Sensing
Elements

    (1) For Group B and D airplanes, and Group A and C airplanes
required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 2,000 flight hours or
120 months, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this
AD, test the overheat detection sensing elements to determine if
they are serviceable, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service bulletin in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi)) of this AD.
    (i) For Model BD-700-1A11 (Global 5000) airplanes: Bombardier
Service Bulletin 700-1A11-36-005 Basic Issue, dated December 23,
2022.
    (ii) For Model BD-700-1A10 (Global Express and Global Express
XRS) airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-026 Basic Issue,
dated December 23, 2022.
    (iii) For Model BD-700-1A11 (Global 5000 featuring Global Vision
Flight Deck) airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-5002
Basic Issue, dated December 23, 2022.
    (iv) For Model BD-700-1A11 (Global 5500) airplanes: Bombardier
Service Bulletin 700-36-5501 Basic Issue, dated December 23, 2022.
    (v) For Model BD-700-1A10 (Global 6000) airplanes: Bombardier
Service Bulletin 700-36-6002 Basic Issue, dated December 23, 2022.
    (vi) For Model BD-700-1A10 (Global 6500) airplanes: Bombardier
Service Bulletin 700-36-6501 Basic Issue, dated December 23, 2022.
    (2) For each sensing element that is serviceable, as determined
by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, before further flight, mark the
sensing element with a witness mark in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions in the applicable Bombardier service
bulletin in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi) of this AD.
    (3) For each sensing element that is not serviceable, as
determined by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
replace the sensing element with a serviceable part in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions in the applicable Bombardier
Service Bulletin in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, any affected part unless it is a serviceable part.

(l) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Bombardier service bulletins in figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD specify to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(m) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (n)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If
mailing information, also submit information by email. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(n) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-17, dated March 8,
2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2000.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven
Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-36-005 Basic Issue,
dated December 23, 2022.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-026 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-5002 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022.
    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-5501 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022.
    (v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-6002 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022.
    (vi) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-36-6501 Basic Issue, dated
December 23, 2022.
    (vii) Liebherr Service Bulletin CFD-F1958-26-01, dated May 6,
2022.
    (3) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD,
contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
bombardier.com.
    (4) For Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse SAS service information
identified in this AD, contact Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse SAS, 408,
Avenue des Etats-Unis--B.P.52010, 31016 Toulouse Cedex, France;
telephone +33 (0)<IP_ADDRESS>.28; fax +33 (0)<IP_ADDRESS>.29; email:
[email protected]; website: www.liebherr.aero.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected].

    Issued on October 26, 2023.
Caitlin Locke,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-24007 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5811]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76989; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Make Permanent the Pilot Program Eliminating Minimum Value
Sizes for Opening Transactions in New Series of FLEX Options

January 28, 2016.
    On November 25, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make permanent its pilot program (``Pilot
Program'') eliminating minimum value sizes for opening transactions in
new series of flexible exchange options (``FLEX Options'' or ``FLEX'').
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2015.\3\ The Commission received no comments
on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76593 (December 8,
2015), 80 FR 77399 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change,
or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day for this filing is January 28,
2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change as well as
the report of pilot data submitted by the Exchange in support of its
proposal. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ designates March 13, 2016 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-Phlx-2015-94).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01926 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72803-72804]
[DOCID:fr07de05-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-5-000, ER06-5-001]

CBK Group, LTD; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 29, 2005.
    CBK Group, LTD (CBK Group) filed an application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed rate tariff
provides for wholesale sales of capacity and energy at market-based
rates. CBK Group also requested waiver of various Commission
regulations. In particular, Wisconsin River requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Wisconsin
River.
    On March 25, 2005, the Commission granted the request for blanket
approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval
of

issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Wisconsin River
should file a motion to intervene or protest 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, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest, is April 25, 2005.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Wisconsin River is authorized to issue securities and assume
obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of Wisconsin River, compatible with the public
interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of Wisconsin River's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Commission's Order are available
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6937 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22476-22477]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4660-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4660-DR), dated July 13, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth G.
Clark, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Alana B. Kuhn as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-07782 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14110]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6075]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
17, 2011 at 10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
March 17, 2011 will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution
and settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters
relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6075 Filed 3-11-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 4287-4291]
[DOCID:fr23ja09-125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. RSPA-00-8026 (PD-26(R))]

Massachusetts' Definitions of Hazardous Materials

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of administrative determination of preemption.

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

    Applicant: Boston and Maine Corporation (Boston and Maine).
    Local Laws Affected: Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) chapter 21
E, section 2 (ch. 21 E); and chapter 21 K, section 1 (ch. 21 K).
    Applicable Federal Requirements: The Federal Hazardous Material
Transportation Law (Federal Hazmat Law), 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., and
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR parts 171-180.
    Modes Affected: Rail and Highway.

SUMMARY: The Federal Hazmat Law does not preempt the definitions of
``hazardous material'' in M.G.L. chs. 21 E and 21 K. As applied and
enforced, the challenged provisions of Massachusetts' laws are not an
``obstacle'' to accomplishing and carrying out the Federal Hazmat Law,
the HMR, or a hazardous materials transportation security regulation or
directive issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Because a
regulated entity may comply with the State and Federal requirements at
the same time the Massachusetts' laws are not preempted under the
``dual compliance'' test. These definitions and State requirements also
do not concern any of the five subject areas in which State Authority
is expressly preempted by the Federal Hazmat Law, and State enforcement
of these laws does not otherwise frustrate Congressional intent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas D. Seymour, Office of Chief
Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, (202)
366-4400, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Room E26-322, Washington, DC 20590; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Issues Under Consideration

    In this determination, PHMSA considers the definitions of
``hazardous material'' as contained in M.G.L. chs. 21 E and 21 K.
Chapter 21 E and entitled ``Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Materials
Release Prevention and Response Act'' to be parallel with the Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,
42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (``CERCLA'' or ``Superfund law''). Chapter 21 K,
``Mitigation of Hazardous Materials,'' governs the State's emergency
mitigation response to a release, or threat of release, of materials
determined by the state to pose a risk of contamination to the local
environment. This statute authorizes the Massachusetts Department of
Fire Services to deploy personnel and equipment for emergency
mitigation response caused by a release, or threat of release, of
materials determined to be a potential environment contaminant. Chapter
21 K also provides for the dispatch of trained personnel to evaluate a
potential risk of contamination to the environment.
    Both M.G.L. chs. 21 E and 21 K use the term ``hazardous material''
to refer to substances triggering the laws' requirements. Under Chapter
21 E a ``hazardous material'' is defined as:

    A material including but not limited to, any material, in
whatever form, which because of its quantity, concentration,
chemical, corrosive, flammable, reactive, toxic, infectious or
radioactive characteristics, either separately or in combination
with any substance or substances, constitutes a present or potential
threat to human health, safety, welfare, or to the environment, when
improperly stored, treated, transported, disposed of, used, or
otherwise managed.

Chapter 21 K contains the same definition except that it expressly
identifies ``oil'' as a hazardous material.

II. Background

A. Summary of Facts

    On June 27, 1999, six railcars from a Boston and Maine train
derailed in the Charlemont, MA area, causing an unidentified material
to leak into the ground and nearby Deerfield River. The Charlemont Fire
Department responded to the incident and, when it could not identify
the material, called the Massachusetts Hazardous Material Response
Team. When the Response team identified the material, and determined it
did not pose a risk to the environment, the team abandoned further
cleanup efforts and turned the scene over to Boston and Maine's
personnel.
    Massachusetts later presented an invoice to Boston and Maine for
the cost of the response and the discontinued cleanup. Boston and Maine
objected and sought relief through state administrative procedures.
Subsequently, Boston and Maine filed a complaint in Massachusetts
Superior Court for Middlesex County, alleging errors in law associated
with the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services' assessment of the
response costs. While the State civil action was pending, Boston and
Maine filed the present request for an Administrative determination of
preemption. (The petition was filed with the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA) the predecessor of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)). For ease of
reading, this publication will refer to PHMSA in describing the
agency's conduct during this proceeding.

B. Application for Preemption

    Boston and Maine applied for a determination of preemption,
contending the Federal Hazmat Law preempts the definitions of
``hazardous material'' contained in M.G.L. chs. 21 E and 21 K. Boston
and Maine makes three arguments for preemption: (1) The definitions of
``hazardous material'' in the Massachusetts laws are not substantively
the same as those in the Federal Hazmat Law; (2) the definitions pose
an obstacle to the uniform regulation of transportation; and (3) by
passing 49 U.S.C. 5125(b), Congress intended the Federal Hazmat Law to
encompass all aspects of a response to a release or threat of release
of a hazardous material while in transportation.
    On November 16, 2000, PHMSA published a Notice in the Federal
Register inviting interested parties to comment on the application (65
FR 69365). In response to requests from Massachusetts, and to give the
parties an opportunity to research and analyze the issues, PHMSA twice
extended the time for public comment (65 FR 79458 (Dec. 19, 2000), 66
FR 8845 (Feb. 2, 2001)).

C. Federal Preemption

    In the absence of a waiver of preemption by DOT (49 U.S.C. 5125(e))
or a grant of specific authority in another Federal law, the Federal
Hazmat Law preempts a requirement of a State, political subdivision of
a State, or Indian tribe if:

    (1) Complying with a requirement of the State, political
subdivision or tribe and a requirement of this chapter or a
regulation issued under this chapter, or a hazardous materials
transportation security regulation or directive issued by the
Secretary of Homeland Security is not possible; or
    (2) The requirement of the State, political subdivision, or
Indian tribe, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to
accomplishing and carrying out this chapter or a regulation
prescribed under this chapter or a hazardous materials
transportation security regulation or directive issued by the
Secretary of Homeland Security (49 U.S.C. 5125(a)).

The two paragraphs in 49 U.S.C. 5125(a) set forth the ``dual
compliance'' and ``obstacle'' tests. Prior to the 1990 codification of
these two tests, PHMSA applied the tests when issuing inconsistency
rulings under the original preemption provisions in the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) (Pub. L. 93-633, 112(a), 88 Stat.
2161 (1975)). The two tests evolved from U.S. Supreme Court decisions
(See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Florida Lime & Avocado
Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield,
Inc., 435 U.S. 151 (1978)).
    PHMSA also has preemption authority under a ``substantively the
same'' test (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)). A non-Federal requirement
concerning any of the subjects listed in 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1), which is
not ``substantively the same as'' a provision of the Federal Hazmat Law
or a regulation prescribed under that law, or a hazardous materials
transportation security regulation or directive issued by the Secretary
of Homeland Security, is preempted unless the non-Federal requirement
is authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants a waiver of
preemption. Section 5125(b)(1) of 49 U.S.C. lists the following
categories:

    (A) The designation, description, and classification of
hazardous material;
    (B) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous material;
    (C) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous material and requirements related to the
number, contents, and placement of those documents;
    (D) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and
    (E) The design, manufacturing, fabricating, marking,
maintenance, reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a packaging or
a container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for
use in transporting hazardous material.

    These areas ``are critical both to the safe transportation of
hazardous materials and the free flow of commerce,'' and any non-
Federal law or requirement falling within one of these areas creates an
obstacle if the non-Federal requirement is substantively different (PD-
23 (RF); Morrisville, PA, Requirements for Transportation of
``Dangerous Waste,'' Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, 67 FR
2948, 2949 (Jan. 22, 2002), internal quotes omitted). The non-Federal
requirement must ``conform in every significant respect to the Federal
requirement to be considered substantively the same. Editorial and
other similar de minimis changes are permitted'' (49 C.F.R.
107.202(d)).
    The preemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 are intended to promote
the safe movement of goods in interstate commerce by ``preclude[ing] a
multiplicity of State and local regulations and the potential for
varying as well as conflicting regulations in the area of hazardous
materials transportation'' (S. Rep. No. 1102, 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess. 37
(1974)). When amending the HMTA in 1990, Congress specifically found:

    (1) Many States and localities have enacted laws and regulations
which vary from Federal laws and regulations pertaining to the
transportation of hazardous materials, thereby creating the
potential for unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions and
confounding shippers and carriers which attempt to comply with
multiple and conflicting registration, permitting, routing,
notification, and other regulatory requirements,
    (2) Because of the potential risks to life, property, and the
environment posed by unintentional releases of hazardous materials,
consistency in laws and regulations governing the transportation of
hazardous materials is necessary and desirable,
    (3) In order to achieve greater uniformity and to promote the
public health, welfare, and safety at all levels, Federal standards
for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce are necessary and
desirable (Pub. L. 101-615, 2, 104 Stat. 3244).

    Uniformity is the ``linchpin'' in the design of the HMTA, including
the 1990 amendments expanding the original preemption provisions
(Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Harmon, 951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir.
1991)). (In 1994, Congress revised, codified, and enacted the HMTA
``without substantive change,'' at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51 (Pub. L. 103-
272, 108, Stat. 745)).
    Any person directly affected by a non-Federal law or regulation may
apply to the Secretary of Transportation for a determination whether a
State, local or tribal requirement is preempted (49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1)).
The Secretary of Transportation delegated to PHMSA the authority to
make determinations of preemption concerning hazardous materials
transportation issues, except for issues concerning highway routing,
which the Secretary delegated to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (49 CFR 1.53(b) and 1.73(d)(2)).
    PHMSA Preemption determinations do not address issues of preemption
arising under the Commerce Clause, the Fifth Amendment or other
provisions of the Constitution. Preemption determinations issued by
PHMSA also do not address questions arising under other Federal
statutes unless it becomes necessary to determine whether the
requirement questioned in the preemption request is authorized or
required by another Federal law.
    In making preemption determinations, PHMSA is guided by the
principles of Federalism and the policies set forth in Executive Order
No. 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)). PHMSA may preempt a State
law only if a Federal statute contains an express preemption provision,
there is other clear evidence that Congress intended to

preempt State law, or the exercise of State authority directly
conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority. The Federal Hazmat
Law contains an express preemption provision at section 5125, and PHMSA
implemented this provision through its regulations.
    PHMSA must publish a notice of an application for a preemption
determination in the Federal Register (49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1)). Following
the receipt and consideration of written comments, PHMSA must publish
its determination in the Federal Register (49 CFR 107.209(d) and
107.211(d)).

D. Summary of Comments to Application for Preemption

    Nufarm, Inc (Nufarm), and the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
(NTTC) provided comments in support of Boston and Maine's application
(RSPA-2000-8026-8 and RSPA-2000-8026-10 respectively). Nufarm and NTTC
urge PHMSA to declare the Massachusetts provisions preempted on the
ground that the definitions in question are not substantively the same
as the definition found in the Federal Hazmat Law.
    PHMSA received comments in opposition to Boston and Maine's
application from: (1) The Massachusetts Attorney General (AG), on
behalf of (a) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (b) Massachusetts
Department of Fire Services, and (c) Department of Environmental
Protection; (2) the State of New York (Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Attorney General); (3) the Fire Chief for Devens,
Massachusetts; (4) the Fire Chiefs' Association of Massachusetts, Inc.;
(5) the State of Vermont; (6) the State of Connecticut; and (7) the
Massachusetts Public Interest Group (MASSPRG).
    The Massachusetts AG argues the intention of Congress in passing
the Federal Hazmat Law was not to preempt the entire field of a State's
emergency response necessitated by the threat of environmental
contamination. Accordingly, the AG argues, the State laws in question
do not frustrate, and are not an obstacle to, the accomplishment of the
goals of the Federal Hazmat Law or the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
    Likewise, the AG asserts that PHMSA should not find that the
Federal Hazmat Law preempts State requirements under the dual-
compliance test, because a person may simultaneously comply with both
the Federal and non-Federal laws and regulations. MASSPRG agrees with
the Commonwealth's dual-compliance argument (RSPA-2000-8026-12).
    In the alternative, the AG challenges the applicability of the
preemption standards. The AG contends that the Federal Hazmat Law has
no application to the subjects addressed in M.G.L. Chs. 21 E and 21 K,
because once a release occurs, the materials are no longer in
transportation (See also letters from MASSPRG, The State of New York
(RSPA-2000-8026-14); Deven's Fire Chief (RSPA-2000-80226-15) and the
Fire Chiefs' Association of Massachusetts (RSPA-2000-8026-16)).
    Lastly, the AG argues preemption is not appropriate because other
Federal laws, such as CERCLA and Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), title III, require States to respond to
releases of potentially hazardous materials or environmental
contaminants. The existence of such laws, the AG argues, shows Congress
did not intend for the Federal Hazmat Law to apply to emergency
response situations.

III. Discussion

A. ``Substantively the Same'' Test

    In the Federal Hazmat Law, Congress provided for express preemption
of a non-Federal requirement ``about * * * the designation,
description, and classification of hazardous materials'' not
``substantively the same'' as the provisions of Title 49, Chapter 51 of
the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)). In order to fully evaluate
Boston and Maine's claim, PHMSA must look at the goals and objectives
of the Federal Hazmat Law and the State laws in question. When
reviewing the goals and objectives of these laws, PHMSA ``start[s] with
the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not
to be superseded by the Federal [Hazmat Law] unless that was the clear
and manifest purpose of Congress'' Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331
U.S. 218, 230 (1947). Physical cleanup after a release of a material is
traditionally a police power of the State (Inconsistency Ruling No. 2;
State of Rhode Island Rules and Regulations Governing the
Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Propane Gas
Intended To Be Used by a Public Utility (44 FR 75566, 75568, Dec. 20,
1979)).
    The purpose of the Federal Hazmat Law is to ``provide adequate
protection against the risk to life and property inherent in the
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce'' (49 U.S.C.
5103(b)). Massachusetts General Law ch. 21 K is intended to provide for
the quick, efficient, and effective cleanup of releases of
environmental contaminants and the evaluation of threats of releases of
materials possibly posing a threat to the environment. It provides the
mechanism by which the State or private individuals may seek recompense
for the costs of response and cleanup caused by a release of certain
materials into the environment. The focus of ch. 21 K is environmental
protection, not the transportation of hazardous materials.
    Massachusetts General Law ch. 21 E focuses on the State response
to, and cleanup of, a release of environmental contaminants and, to
that end, requires the identification of materials that may contaminate
the local environment. This statute allows proper state authorities to
determine which materials cause, or might cause, a contamination to the
local environment if released. The Federal Hazmat Law requires the DOT
to also identify materials that pose a risk to the environment.
However, in contrast to the Massachusetts laws, the Federal Hazmat Law
endeavors to ensure that materials are transported without release.
With a primary focus on preventing a release, the Federal Hazmat Law
serves a more limited environmental role after a release that
necessitates a cleanup or mediation. For example, if a release of a
hazardous material occurs during transportation, the Federal Hazmat
Law, through the HMR, ensures that first responders receive adequate
information concerning the materials listed in the HMR, and it also
requires the reporting of release information to the appropriate
authorities.
    The Massachusetts laws do not directly or indirectly affect or
conflict with the transportation of hazardous materials or with
transportation in general. The State's use of the term ``hazardous
material'' to describe materials that may contaminate the local
environment does not bring it into conflict with Federal law and is not
a basis for preemption.
    Given the distinct purposes served by the Federal Hazmat Law and
the State laws, the lack of direct or indirect effect or conflict
between them, and the States' traditional police powers in matters
involving environmental protection, the Massachusetts laws are not
preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b). Accordingly, we need not address the
question of whether a material remains in transportation after a
release has occurred.

B. Obstacle Test

    In applying the ``obstacle'' test, we consider any and all
requirements imposed by the HMR, including those governing packaging;
the marking and labeling of packages; and the reporting of a release
occurring during

transportation. We next consider whether the non-Federal requirement
``as applied and enforced'' stands in the way of compliance with, or
enforcement of, the Federal Hazmat Law.
    The State laws currently under consideration provide authority to
respond to a release or threat of release of materials that
Massachusetts found to pose a risk to the soil, water, or environment
of Massachusetts. These laws also allow for the cleanup of contaminants
and the recovery of the cleanup and response costs. No evidence in the
record suggests that ch. 21 E or 21 K, as applied and enforced,
interferes with accomplishing the packaging, marking, labeling,
reporting, or any other provision of the HMR. Neither Boston and Maine,
nor any commenter, has alleged or shown Massachusetts to be applying or
enforcing either ch. 21 E or 21 K in a manner imposing different or
additional requirements on a carrier, or any other persons subject to
the HMR. Accordingly, M.G.L. chs. 21 E and 21 K are not preempted by
the Federal Hazmat Law by operation of the ``obstacle'' test.

C. Dual Compliance Test

    For similar reasons, we do not find M.G.L. chs. 21 E or 21 K
preempted under the ``dual compliance'' test. Nothing in those laws,
including the subject definitions, affects either: (1) The manner in
which a shipper must package, label, or mark a hazardous material for
transportation; (2) the duties of a carrier when it accepts a shipment
of hazardous materials complying with the HMR; or (3) a carrier's
obligation to report a release of a material determined by the
Secretary of Transportation to be a ``hazardous material.'' Therefore,
the facts presented in this matter show a person can simultaneously
comply with the requirements of the Federal Hazmat Law and the State
laws.

D. Intent of Congress

    Finally, we consider the contention of Boston and Maine that the
Massachusetts laws fall within a regulatory field that Congress
intended would be exclusively reserved to PHMSA. We conclude to the
contrary. On matters concerning the physical response and cleanup of
contamination, Congress left room for States and localities to exercise
their traditional authority.
    PHMSA enters this field in limited respects, imposing certain
requirements related to the release of designated hazardous materials
in or in connection with transportation. Other Federal agencies
regulate aspects of releases or threats of releases of hazardous
materials and any other materials posing a risk to the environment.
Congress granted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) authority to
regulate aspects of the response to a release or threat of release of
hazardous materials. Furthermore, States have retained their
traditional authority relating to the release or threat of release of
materials occurring within State borders.
    Under the Federal Hazmat Law, PHMSA promulgates regulations
requiring a person offering hazardous materials for transportation to
provide carriers with certain emergency response information to
accompany the hazardous materials while in transportation. The
mandatory information includes: (1) Information regarding the materials
present in the shipment, (2) what hazards the materials may present,
(3) how to treat the materials, (4) preliminary first aid measures, and
(5) how to avoid risk of injury. This information is conveyed by the
placarding of the transport vehicle, the marking and labeling of the
packaging, and the content of shipping papers. PHMSA also regulates
incident reporting and recording, prescribing when, how, and to whom
reports must be made of hazardous materials releases occurring during
transportation.
    PHMSA has long recognized that the actual physical response and
cleanup after a release of materials during transportation is a local
responsibility. In Inconsistency Ruling No. 2; State of Rhode Island
Rules and Regulations Governing the Transportation of Liquefied Natural
Gas and Liquefied Propane Gas Intended To Be Used by a Public Utility
(44 FR 75566, Dec. 20, 1979), PHMSA identified subjects as to which the
need for national uniformity is so crucial and the scope of the HMTA
(now Federal Hazmat Law) is so pervasive that State or local
regulations would present obstacles to the HMTA. PHMSA also identified
subjects as to which the Federal Hazmat Law and HMR did not (and still
do not) apply. Specifically, PHMSA stated:

    Despite the dominant role that Congress contemplated for the
Departmental standards, there are certain aspects of hazardous
materials transportation that are not amenable to effective
nationwide regulation. One example is safety hazards that are
peculiar to a local area. * * * Another example is emergency
response activity. Although the Federal Government can regulate in
order to avert situations where emergency response is necessary, and
can aid in local and State planning and preparing, when an accident
does occur, response is, of necessity, a local responsibility (44 FR
at 75568).

    The HMR also prescribe requirements for written notification,
recording, and reporting after a release of a material the Secretary of
Transportation has deemed poses ``an unreasonable risk to health and
safety or property'' when the material is in transportation or in
storage incidental to its movement in transportation. The Secretary of
Transportation lists these materials in 49 CFR 172.101. Even as to
those materials, the Federal Hazmat Law does not authorize PHMSA to
regulate the cleanup, assessment, remediation, evaluation of releases
of such materials, or to seek reimbursement for the costs caused by a
release of such materials.
    In short, in the area of response and cleanup of materials released
during transportation, the Federal Hazmat Law does not provide PHMSA
authority that ``is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference
that Congress left no room for the state to supplement it.''
Accordingly, we do not find that the Massachusetts laws regulate a
field reserved to PHMSA by Federal law and are not otherwise persuaded
that in adopting the Federal Hazmat Law, Congress intended to preempt
laws such as the Massachusetts laws under consideration here.

V. Ruling

    The Federal Hazmat Law does not preempt Massachusetts' definitions
of hazardous materials contained in M.G.L., Ch. 21 E, section 2 and Ch.
21 K, section 1 because these definitions relate solely to
environmental response and cleanup requirements. The State requirements
as applied and enforced are not an obstacle to accomplishing and
carrying any provision of the Federal Hazmat Law, the HMR, or a
transportation security regulation or directive issued by the Secretary
of Homeland Security and do not concern any of the five subject areas
reserved to federal jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b) or 49 CFR
171.202(a).

VI. Petition for Reconsideration/Judicial Review

    This determination is a final agency action upon publication in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 107.209(c), as amended at 71 FR 30067 [May 25,
2006]), except with respect to a person who files a timely petition for
reconsideration. In accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(a) (as amended at 71
FR 30068 [May 25, 2006]), a person aggrieved by this determination may
file a petition for reconsideration within 20 days of publication of
this

determination in the Federal Register. The filing of a petition for
reconsideration is not a prerequisite to seeking judicial review under
49 U.S.C. 5127(a).
    A person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by a preemption
determination may file a petition for judicial review of that
determination in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia or in the Court of Appeals for the United States for the
circuit in which the petitioner resides or has its principal place of
business, within 60 days after the determination becomes final. 49
U.S.C. 5127(a).

    Issued in Washington, DC on this 15th day of January, 2009.
David E. Kunz,
Chief Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E9-1419 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P