[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52993-52996]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20494]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0528; FRL-8974-02-R3]

Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Negative Declaration for the Oil and
Gas Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision provides Maryland's determination, via a negative
declaration, that there are no sources within its borders subject to
EPA's 2016 Oil and Natural Gas control techniques guidelines (2016 Oil
and Gas CTG). EPA is approving these revisions to the Maryland SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0528. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 9, 2021 (86 FR 8742), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of Maryland's negative declaration SIP submittal for
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. On June 18, 2020, the Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) submitted the negative declaration for the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG as a revision to the Maryland SIP.
    The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to prevent photochemical reactions
that result in ozone formation. Reasonably available control technology
(RACT) is a strategy for reducing NOX and VOC emissions from
stationary sources within designated nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above that are not meeting the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone. EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as
the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of the control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.
    Control techniques guidelines (CTGs) and alternative control
techniques (ACTs) form important components of the guidance that EPA
provides to states for making RACT determinations. CTGs are used to
presumptively define VOC RACT for applicable source categories. CAA
section 182(b)(2)(A) requires that for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or above, states must revise their SIPs to
include provisions to implement RACT for each category of VOC sources
covered by a CTG document. CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) extends the RACT
obligation to all areas of states within the ozone transport region
(OTR), including Maryland.

    States subject to RACT requirements are required to enact controls
for sources subject to CTGs that are at least as stringent as those
found within the CTG, either via the adoption of regulations or by
issuance of single source permits that outline what the source is
required to do to meet RACT. On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA issued
a final rule entitled ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements''
(2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). In the preamble to the final rule,
EPA makes clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG
source category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in
the OTR, the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. See
80 FR 12264, 12278. The same negative declaration is allowed by the
2015 ozone NAAQS implementation rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The majority of the provisions for implementing the 2008
ozone NAAQS (including those related to negative declarations) were
retained without revision for purposes of implementing the 2015
ozone NAAQS. See ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation
Plan Requirements'' (2015 Ozone Implementation Rule) 83 FR 62998
(December 6, 2018); and 40 CFR 51.1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74798), EPA published in the Federal
Register the ``Release of Final Control Techniques Guidelines for the
Oil and Natural Gas Industry,'' (2016 Oil and Gas CTG). This CTG
provided information to state, local, and tribal air agencies to assist
in determining RACT for VOC emissions from certain VOC emission sources
within the oil and natural gas industry. The 2016 Oil and Gas CTG
replaces an earlier 1983 CTG entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants.
December 1983.'' EPA-450/3-83-007 (1983 CTG) 49 FR 4432; February 6,
1984. See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, p. 8-1.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    According to Maryland's June 18, 2020 submittal, MDE conducted a
review of potential sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. This
review consisted of a search of Maryland's oil and gas well records,
air permit records, EPA greenhouse gas reporting records, and the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. MDE's search
identified a total of 13 facilities in Maryland operating in the
production, processing, or transmission and storage segments of the oil
and natural gas industry. However, none of these facilities had storage
tanks or production wells that met or exceeded the applicability
criteria of the CTG. MDE identified five facilities in the natural gas
transmission sector, but determined that none of them had storage tanks
with the potential to emit (PTE) more than 6 tons per year (tpy) of
VOCs, which is the threshold for applicability of the CTG.\2\
Additionally, MDE identified eight active individual production wells,
but determined that none of these exceeded the 15 barrel equivalents
per day per well, which is the threshold for CTG applicability.\3\
Other specific requirements of the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will
not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG at 3-6.
    \3\ See Id. at 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received four sets of comments on our proposed approval of
Maryland's
    June 18, 2020 negative declaration SIP submittal. One comment was
generally in favor of EPA's proposed action and will not be addressed
in this action. A summary of the other comments and EPA's response is
provided herein. All comments received are included in the docket for
this action.
    Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the tanks and production
wells identified by MDE as being potentially subject to the CTG, but
determined by MDE to not meet the applicability thresholds and
therefore not subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, should have
mechanisms to limit their PTE to ensure that they remain below the
thresholds. The commenter provides the example of synthetic minor
permits. The commenter further asserts that relying on emission factors
or other engineering estimates would be arbitrary given the ``many
variables involved.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions. First,
AP42 emissions factors and the engineering estimates (i.e. modelling)
relied upon in Maryland's submittal are generally accepted and are used
regularly in place of direct emissions measurement. Therefore, MDE's
reliance upon them for the purposes of this negative declaration is not
``arbitrary.'' EPA further disagrees with the commenter's assertion
that the reported facilities should have synthetic minor permits or
other enforceable limits on their PTE, and that it is ``implausible''
to claim that these facilities could have PTEs below the applicability
thresholds absent such limits. In support of this claim, the commenter
offers merely the ``many variables involved,'' such as varying
composition of the gas over time. EPA's review of Maryland's submittal
shows that the referenced sources all report emissions well below the
thresholds. For the potentially affected storage vessels (tanks),
Maryland provided extensive documentation, including calculations that
considered ambient temperature variations, throughput, and chemical
composition of the liquids stored in the tanks. All emissions reported
were considerably under the applicability threshold for storage
vessels. For example, of the six potentially affected tanks identified
at the Dominion Cove Point facility, the highest emissions reported
were 0.02 tpy of VOC, which is significantly below the 6 tpy threshold.
See Attachment A of MDE's June 18, 2020 submittal. The overwhelming
majority of the tanks analyzed reported emissions of only a fraction of
a ton per year. The highest reported emissions were for the two
condensate storage tanks at the Accident compressor station. Each of
those had calculated emissions of 1.2 tpy, still well below the
threshold. See Attachment B of MDE's June 18, 2020 submittal.
    Similarly, EPA disagrees that the identified production wells need
enforceable limits on their production. First, the commenter has
provided no evidence to contradict MDE's evaluation of the wells'
outputs. Second, MDE certified in their submittal that their evaluation
of the production wells was based on a search of their permit records.
Each of the listed wells was constructed under a permit issued by
Maryland. MDE is therefore well positioned to review the data
associated with each of those permits and make an accurate
determination of each well's output. EPA finds no reason to determine
that MDE's determination with respect to the wells was unreasonable.
    EPA believes that there is a sufficient margin between the reported
emissions and the applicability threshold to determine that the
identified sources do not need enforceable PTE limits in order for EPA
to approve Maryland's negative declaration. Furthermore, Federal
regulations are only necessary if a covered source exceeds the
applicability thresholds established by the CTG. Maryland has certified
that none of the sources within its jurisdiction exceed these
thresholds. Should any of the reported sources exceed the thresholds in
the future; or should a new source of the type covered by the existing
CTG emitting more than either threshold be constructed in the state
after approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the

state to develop a regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into
the SIP in accordance with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA.
Additionally, it is likely that any significant change in the operation
of the existing facilities which would impact their PTE would be
subject to preconstruction review by MDE. The same is true for the
construction of new sources. At this time, because Maryland does not
have any sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, no regulation is
required to be developed and submitted for EPA approval. Therefore, we
disagree with the commenter and are finalizing our approval of
Maryland's negative declaration.
    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove MDE's
June 18, 2020 submittal because it relies on TANKS modelling, which
utilizes outdated information, including temperature/climate data which
is ``all over 10 years old.'' The commenter further takes issue with
the use in the model of 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F) as an average
temperature, asserting that summer temperatures routinely exceed that
mark, and that it is ``settled science'' that as temperatures rise, so
do VOC emissions. The commenter asserts that EPA ``cannot assume with a
straight face'' that these tanks will only operate at 70 degrees F,
that the 70 degrees F assumption is only valid for indoor, climate-
controlled situations, and that MDE's negative declaration should be
disapproved because the model was improperly performed and did not
consider ``current and realistic temperature and climatic data.''
Finally, the commenter asserts that the model should be run using
``average climatic data for each month.''
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions. First,
the CTG provides flexibility and does not require a specific method for
calculating VOC emissions. The model rule language provided in the CTG
requires only that ``emissions must be calculated using a generally
accepted model or calculation methodology.'' \4\ The new source
performance standards of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 60, subpart OOOOa, (also applying to the oil and natural gas
sector) include similar language. See 40 CFR 60.5395a(a)(3). E&P TANKS
is a ``generally accepted'' model, and therefore an appropriate tool
for calculating VOC emissions for the purpose of this negative
declaration. In fact, the model was one of the resources utilized by
EPA in the development of the CTG.\5\ Second, while EPA acknowledges
that ambient temperatures impact VOC emissions from storage vessels, we
do not agree that the assumption of 70 degrees F as an average
temperature within the model is inappropriate. Furthermore, contrary to
the commenter's assertion, the use of 70 degrees as an average is not
an assumption that the tank will never operate above that temperature.
MDE identified six facilities that had tanks potentially subject to the
CTG: the Dominion Cove Point LNG facility, the Dominion Myersville
compressor station, the Enbridge Eastern Accident compressor station,
the Enbridge Accident underground storage facility, the Williams
Transco Ellicott City compressor station, and the TransCanada
compressor station. The documentation provided by MDE included
submittals from the potentially impacted sources, including the results
of TANKS modelling to evaluate their particular storage vessels. Of the
six facilities identified, only the Dominion facilities appear to have
run the model with an ``across the board'' assumption of 70 degrees as
the ambient temperature.\6\ See attachments A-D of MDE's June 18, 2020
submittal. Temperature data from the National Weather Service for the
Baltimore \7\ area for 2020 show that only three months--June, July and
August--exceeded an average monthly temperature of 70 degrees (75.1,
82.6, and 78.7 degrees, respectively).\8\ The other nine months were
below 70. Using 70 degrees as an average for all twelve months is
therefore a conservative approach, as the over-estimating for nine
months offsets the potential under-estimating for the other three.
Furthermore, Dominion reported emissions for six tanks, five at the
Cove Point facility, and one at the Myersville compressor station. Of
those tanks, only one reported any emissions at all. That tank, a
38,152 gallon tank, containing ``hydrocarbons,'' reported emissions of
only 0.02 tpy AND is equipped with a control device (emissions are
piped via a closed loop to a flare). See Attachment A of MDE's June 18,
2020 submittal. The modelling for the Enbridge tanks, as well as the
Williams Transco tanks, appears to have taken into account daily
temperature variations and other variables to calculate actual monthly
averages. See Attachments B and C of MDE's June 18, 2020 submittal.
This approach, which is in line with the commenter's assertion, also
results in emissions that, in all cases, are well below the 6 tpy
threshold. We find these analyses (and MDE's reliance upon them) to be
reasonable. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter and are
finalizing our approval of Maryland's negative declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See section A.2(i) of Model Rule Language; 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG; Appendix A at A-8.
    \5\ See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG at 4-3.
    \6\ MDE's submittal did not include documentation for the
modelling runs at the TransCanada compressor station. Rather, an
email from the company to MDE indicated that they performed TANKS
modelling on four tanks, with a total emission estimate across all
units of 0.66 tpy. See attachment D of MDE's June 18, 2020
submittal.
    \7\ Data for the Cove Point area was not immediately available,
but Baltimore is close enough to provide a representative example.
    \8\ See https://www.weather.gov/media/lwx/climate/bwitemps.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter asserts that EPA must disapprove MDE's
negative declaration because ``the standards are not scientific or
related to scientific procedures and are not consistent with the
state's development priorities for air, water, and noise.'' Further,
the commenter asserts that the SIP is not consistent with EPA's ``study
on methane emissions from drilling operations,'' that the guidelines
``cannot be promulgated under the state's authority'' because they were
``derived from an out-of-date methodology used in 2012,'' and that
MDE's own review of ``EPA's 2012 study of hydraulic fracturing fluid
emissions'' identified a number of concerns about the findings.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that we
must disapprove MDE's June 18, 2020 submittal. First, the commenter
makes several references to ``hydraulic fracturing'' (fracking), but
none of the wells addressed by MDE's submittal employ fracking as a
means of extraction. Indeed, Maryland has imposed a ``fracking ban,''
and does not allow the practice within the State. See Md. Code Ann.
Environment section 14-107.1. Therefore, fracking plays no role in
MDE's negative declaration or EPA's approval. Second, it is not
entirely clear to which allegedly out of date ``methodology'' and
allegedly unscientific ``standards'' the commenter is referring. If the
commenter is referring to the CTG itself, the validity of the CTG is
not at issue in this action and will not be addressed here. This action
relates only to MDE's certification that there are no sources within
the State subject to the CTG. The commenter has not identified any
flaws specific to MDE's methodology for making that determination, nor
with EPA's proposed approval. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter
and are finalizing our approval of Maryland's negative declaration.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's negative declaration as a revision to
Maryland's

SIP, to address the CAA requirements of section 182(b)(2)(A) and
184(b)(1)(B) under the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, as they pertain to
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 23, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action pertaining to Maryland's negative declaration for the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone,Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Negative Declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
 Name of non-regulatory SIP   Applicable geographic   submittal      EPA approval date    Additional explanation
          revision                    area               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Negative Declaration for     Statewide.............      6/18/20  9/24/21, [insert        Negative declaration
 the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.                                         Federal Register        submitted for the
                                                                   citation].              2008 and 2015 ozone
                                                                                national ambient air
                                                                                quality standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-20494 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 53948]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request for Change in
Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical at Salisbury-Ocean City:
Wicomico Regional Airport, Salisbury, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request for a change in use of on-airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on
Wicomico County's request to change 24.5 acres of federally obligated
airport property at Salisbury-Ocean City: Wicomico Regional Airport,
Salisbury, MD from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use. This acreage
was originally purchased with federal financial assistance through the
Airport Improvement Program. The proposed use of land after the sale
will be compatible with the airport and will not interfere with the
airport or its operation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on this application may be
mailed or delivered to the following address: Anthony Rudy, Airport
Manager, Salisbury-Ocean City: Wicomico Regional Airport, 5485 Airport
Terminal Road, Unit A, Salisbury, MD 21804,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and at the
FAA Washington Airports District Office: Matthew J. Thys, Manager,
Washington Airports District Office, 13873 Park Center Road, Suite
490S, Herndon, VA 20171,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by grant
agreements. The following is a brief overview of the request.
    Wicomico County has submitted a land release request seeking FAA
approval for the change in use of approximately 24.5 acres of federally
obligated airport property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use.
The property is situated within the approach to Runway 14 but outside
of the runway protection zone. Due to this location, the subject area
is unable to be utilized for aviation.
    The 24.5 acres of land to be released consist of 12.7 acres of
Parcel 24 and 11.8 acres of Parcel 63. Parcel 63 was originally
purchased with federal financial assistance through the AIP program
under Grant Agreement 3-24-0025-37-2007. The FAA has determined the
proposed project would have no material impact on aircraft operations,
at, to or from the airport; would not affect the safety of people and
property on the ground adjacent to the airport as a result of aircraft
operations; and would not have an adverse effect on the value of prior
Federal investments to a significant extent. Subsequent to the
implementation of the proposed change in use, rents received by the
airport from this property is considered airport revenue, and will be
used in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) and the FAA's Policy and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue published in the
Federal Register on February 16, 1999. The proposed use of the property
will not interfere with the airport or its operation.

    Issued in Herndon, Virginia.
Matthew J. Thys,
Manager, Washington Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-16986 Filed 8-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66777-66780]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 764 and 766

[Docket No. 120207107-2565-01]
RIN 0694-AF59

Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary Self-Disclosures and
Revised Notice of the Institution of Administrative Enforcement
Proceedings

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require that the final, comprehensive
narrative account required in voluntary self-disclosures (VSDs) of
violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) be submitted
to the Office of Export Enforcement within 180 days of the initial VSD
notification. This proposed rule also would authorize the use of
delivery services other than registered or certified mail for providing
notice of the issuance of a charging letter instituting an
administrative enforcement proceeding under the EAR. It also would
remove the phrase ``if delivery is refused'' from a provision relating
to determining the date of service of notice of a charging letter's
issuance based on an attempted delivery to the respondent's last known
address. The Bureau of Industry and Security is proposing these changes
to be better able to resolve administrative enforcement proceedings in
a timely manner and provide more efficient notice of administrative
charging letters.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than January 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2012-0043.
     By email directly to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include
RIN 0694-AF59 in the subject line.
     By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau
of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN
0694-AF59.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Special Agent Kirk Flashner, Office of
Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room H4514, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Export
Enforcement (OEE), investigates possible violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) and orders, licenses, and
authorizations issued thereunder. These investigations may result in
allegations of violations that may be settled, adjudicated in an
administrative enforcement proceeding, or referred to the Department of
Justice for possible criminal prosecution. This rule proposes three
changes to the EAR. One change addresses voluntary self-disclosures in
connection with OEE's conduct of investigations. The other two changes
address service of notice in administrative enforcement proceedings.

Proposed Change Regarding Voluntary Self-Disclosures

    Section 764.5 of the EAR provides a procedure whereby parties that
believe that they may have committed a violation of the EAR can
voluntarily disclose the facts of the potential violations to OEE. Such
disclosures that meet the requirements of Sec.  764.5 typically are
afforded ``great weight'' by BIS, relative to other mitigating factors,
in determining what administrative sanctions, if any, to seek. Section
764.5 requires an initial notification, which is to include a
description of the general nature and extent of the suspected
violations, and is followed at a later date by a thorough review and
narrative account of the suspected violations, including all relevant
supporting documentation. If the person making the initial notification
subsequently completes the narrative account, the disclosure is deemed
to have been submitted to OEE on the date of the initial notification.
The date of the initial notification may be significant because
information provided to OEE may only be considered a voluntary
disclosure if the information ``is received by OEE for review prior to
the time that OEE or another United States Government agency has
learned of the same or substantially similar information from another
source and has commenced an investigation or inquiry in connection with
that information.'' 15 CFR 764.5(b)(3).
    Currently, Sec.  764.5 of the EAR does not include a specific time
limit within which a narrative account must be submitted to OEE. Too
often, initial notifications are not promptly followed by comprehensive
narrative accounts, and as a result, OEE must maintain open files on
voluntary disclosures for extended periods of time without making
sufficient progress towards resolving the matter disclosed. To address
these situations and promote expeditious resolution of self-disclosed
violations, BIS proposes to set a 180-day deadline for persons who have
submitted an initial notification to complete and submit the final
narrative report to OEE. The Director of OEE could extend this 180-day
time deadline, at his or her discretion, if U.S. Government interests
would be served by an extension or upon a showing by the party making
the disclosure that more time is reasonably necessary to complete the
narrative account. Some illustrative examples of circumstances that
might warrant additional time include the following.
     Records or information from multiple entities and/or
jurisdictions are

needed to complete the narrative account.
     Material changes occur in the business, such as a
bankruptcy, large layoffs, or a corporate acquisition or restructuring,
and present difficulties in gaining access to, or analysis of,
information needed to complete the narrative account.
     A pending U.S. Government determination (such as a
commodity jurisdiction determination or a classification request) is
needed to complete the narrative account.
    The Director of OEE may place conditions on his or her approval of
an extension. For example, while BIS generally obtains an agreement to
toll the statute of limitations at the time that an initial
notification is filed, in response to a request for an extension of the
180-day deadline, the Director of OEE may require a tolling agreement,
if one has not already been obtained, to cover any violations disclosed
in the initial notification or discovered during the review conducted
to prepare the narrative account. The Director of OEE also has
discretion to require the disclosing person to undertake specific
interim remedial compliance measures as a condition of granting an
extension to the 180-day deadline.
    Failure to meet either the 180-day deadline or an extended deadline
granted by the Director of OEE would not be an additional violation of
the EAR. However, that failure may reduce or eliminate the mitigating
impact of the voluntary disclosure. The 180-day deadline serves as an
incentive to the disclosing party, as meeting the deadline will allow
information contained in the narrative account to be credited by OEE as
having been voluntarily disclosed on the date of the initial
notification, even if the information was not explicitly described in
that initial notification. This new rule is consistent with the notion
of an initial notification, which rewards promptness and which
acknowledges that a disclosing party might not be able to identify all
of the possible violations of the EAR at the time an initial
notification was made.
    Imposing a deadline to complete voluntary disclosures is consistent
with the practices of other agencies. The International Traffic in Arms
Regulations imposes a 60-day deadline (22 CFR 127.12(c)). Similarly,
the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control also
imposes time constraints by requiring that disclosures be made within a
reasonable time following the initial notification. Based on its
experience with voluntary self-disclosures, BIS believes that 180 days
is ample time to complete the narrative account in most instances and
that requests for extensions will normally not be necessary or
justified.

Proposed Changes Regarding Providing Notice of the Institution of
Administrative Enforcement Proceedings

    Section 766.3 of the EAR sets forth the procedures for instituting
administrative enforcement proceedings. Those procedures include
issuing a charging letter, which constitutes the formal administrative
complaint. The charging letter sets forth the essential facts about the
alleged violations and certain other information about the case, and
informs the respondent that failure to answer the charges will be
treated as a default. Respondents must be notified of the issuance of a
charging letter by one of the methods listed in Sec.  766.3(b) of EAR.
One allowable method is mailing a copy of the letter by registered or
certified mail to the respondent's last known address. BIS proposes to
add as an authorized method of notification, sending a copy of the
charging letter to the respondent's last known address by express mail
or by a commercial courier or delivery service. BIS is proposing to
make this change to facilitate the process of notifying the respondent
in cases where the respondent's last known address is in a country with
a postal service that is inefficient or unreliable or in which postal
delivery tracking information is not available. It will also allow BIS
to select an efficient and effective method of notifying the respondent
of the issuance of the charging letter. Moreover, unlike registered and
certified mail, reputable commercial courier or delivery services and
the U.S. Postal Service's express mail use point-by-point tracking or
similar electronic tracking methods to provide detailed records of a
parcel's delivery or attempted delivery. The use of services that
provide detailed tracking information for parcels sent outside the
United States will enable BIS to track and monitor the delivery status
of pending notifications more efficiently and effectively.
    Respondents are required to answer a charging letter within 30 days
of being served with notice of its issuance. Currently the date of
service of notice is determined under Sec.  766.3(c) by the date of
delivery, or of attempted delivery if delivery is refused. BIS proposes
to remove the phrase ``if delivery is refused'' from Sec.  766.3(c) of
the EAR. This proposed rule eliminates the requirement that an
attempted delivery must involve documentation that the delivery was
``refused.'' The phrase ``is refused'' focuses on registered and
certified mail, which include a postcard-sized hard-copy receipt that
is returned to the sender after delivery or attempted delivery. This
proposed rule provides for the use of reliable mail or delivery
services that do not use such a hard-copy return receipt system and can
efficiently and effectively track deliveries and attempted deliveries.
In addition, BIS has found that in some instances foreign postal
services do not return the receipt even though the parcel or package
has been not been returned, including in situations where the
respondent subsequently contacts BIS about the charging letter.
Moreover, some foreign postal services do not list ``refused'' as an
option on a pre-printed return receipt or do not record other
information when the package containing the charging letter is
returned, including in situations when the package has been returned
opened. This proposed change to Sec.  766.3(c) would better enable BIS
to determine the date of service of notice of issuance of charging
letters sent to entities located in foreign countries.
    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended
most recently by the Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16,
2012), has continued the EAR in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues
to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as
appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive
Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule
is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has
been determined not to be a significant rule for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq., unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This proposed rule involves an approved
information collection entitled ``Procedure for Voluntary Self-
Disclosure of Violations'' (OMB control number 0694-0058). BIS believes
that the changes to the voluntary disclosure procedures that this rule
proposes would have no material effect on the burden imposed by this
collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; and
to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20230 or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>referencing RIN 0694-AF59 in the subject line.
    3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or
any other statute. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if the
head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the statute does not
require the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulations,
Department of Commerce, submitted a memorandum to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Small Business Administration, certifying that this proposed
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This proposed rule would make three changes to the EAR. The first
change would require that parties making voluntarily self-disclosures
of violations of the EAR complete the process within 180 days of making
the initial notification or obtain an extension from OEE. The second
change would add delivery by express mail and commercial couriers and
delivery services as an acceptable method of serving administrative
charging letters on respondents. The third change would remove the
words ``if delivery is refused'' from one section to account for
carriers with electronic tracking capabilities. The legal and factual
background for these changes is detailed in the preamble to this
proposed rule and not repeated here.
    The first proposed change would merely set a deadline of 180 days
from the initial disclosure for parties to submit the narrative account
that completes the disclosure as part of a voluntary self-disclosure.
It makes no changes to the volume or nature of the information that an
entity making a voluntary self-disclosure must submit to BIS. It does
not create any new substantive requirements, but merely places a
reasonable deadline on parties seeking to obtain the benefits of
voluntary self-disclosure. If the disclosing party needs more than 180
days, the party may request an extension of time from the Director of
OEE. Although this proposed change may place some additional burden on
parties making voluntary self-disclosures, that burden would not be
significant.
    The second proposed change would allow BIS to use delivery services
other than certified or registered mail to effect service of charging
letters, or amendments and supplements thereto. This rule makes no
changes to any of the actions that any small entity or any entity must
make in response to an administrative charging letter or any supplement
or amendment thereto. The only potential impact on members of the
public is the method by which they would receive notification, and this
cannot be considered a significant impact on any entity outside of BIS.
    The third proposed change would remove the words ``if delivery is
refused'' from Sec.  766.3(c). This change is being made to update the
EAR to allow the use of carriers that track shipments, which in turn
better enables BIS to determine the date of service notifying
respondents, foreign entities in particular, that a charging letter has
been issued. Like the previous proposed change, this would not impose
any burden on a member of the public.
    Although BIS cannot state with certainty the number of small
entities that would be affected by this rule, any economic impact would
be negligible. This rule does not increase any of the information that
any party must provide in connection with a voluntary self-disclosure
of an EAR violation. It merely requires the disclosing party to
complete the comprehensive narrative account of the violations within
180 days of submitting the initial notification. BIS believes that 180
days would be an adequate amount of time for most voluntary self-
disclosures. In those instances where additional time is needed to
complete the narrative account, the rule provides that the Director of
OEE may extend the 180-day deadline. In addition, BIS believes that the
proposed change to allow for delivery by a commercial courier or
delivery service is necessary in some cases to effect service abroad.
Similarly, the proposed removal of the requirement that an attempted
delivery is insufficient absent documentation that the respondent
``refused'' the delivery is necessary because express mail and
reputable commercial courier or delivery services provide detailed
tracking information concerning deliveries and attempted deliveries,
and because some foreign postal delivery services may not document a
refusal. Because none of these proposed changes would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has
been prepared.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 764

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Law enforcement,
Penalties.

15 CFR Part 766

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 764 and 766 of the
Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are
proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 764--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation paragraph for part 764 continues to read
as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).

    2. Section 764.5 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (c)(2)(i) and by adding three sentences immediately following
that sentence to read as follows:

Sec.  764.5  Voluntary self-disclosure.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * * (i) * * * If the person making the initial notification
subsequently completes and submits to OEE the narrative account
required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section such that OEE receives the
narrative account within 180 days of its receipt of the initial
notification, matters disclosed by the narrative account will be deemed
to

have been disclosed to OEE on the date of the initial notification for
purposes of paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The Director of OEE may
extend this 180-day deadline upon a determination in his or her
discretion that U.S. Government interests would be served by an
extension or that the person making the initial notification has shown
that more than 180 days is reasonably needed to complete the narrative
account. The Director of OEE in his or her discretion may place
conditions on the approval of an extension. For example, the Director
of OEE may require that the disclosing person agree to toll the statute
of limitations with respect to violations disclosed in the initial
notification or discovered during the review to prepare the narrative
account, and/or require the disclosing person to undertake specified
interim remedial compliance measures. Failure to meet the deadline
(either the initial 180-day deadline or an extended deadline granted by
the Director of OEE) would not be an additional violation of the EAR,
but such failure may reduce or eliminate the mitigating impact of the
voluntary disclosure under Supp. No. 1 to this part.
* * * * *

PART 766--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation paragraph for part 766 continues to read
as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).

    4. Section 766.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)
to read as follows:

Sec.  766.3  Institution of administrative enforcement proceedings.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) By sending a copy by registered or certified mail or by express
mail or commercial courier or delivery service addressed to the
respondent at the respondent's last known address; * * *
    (c) The date of service of notice of the issuance of a charging
letter instituting an administrative enforcement proceeding, or service
of notice of the issuance of a supplement or amendment to a charging
letter, is the date of its delivery, or of its attempted delivery by
any means described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    Dated November 2, 2012.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-27206 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33756]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14297]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-OW-2011-0504; FRL-9317-5]

Notice of Approval of the Primacy Application for National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for the State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for a public
hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby giving
notice that the State of Missouri is revising its approved Public Water
System Supervision Program under the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR). The EPA has determined that these revisions are no
less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore,
the EPA intends to approve these program revisions.

DATES: This determination to approve the Missouri program revision is
made pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d)(3). This determination shall become
final and effective on July 11, 2011, unless (1) A timely and
appropriate request for a public hearing is received or (2) the
Regional Administrator elects to hold a public hearing on his own
motion. Any interested person, other than Federal Agencies, may request
a public hearing. All interested parties may request a public hearing
on the approval of these program revisions to the EPA Regional
Administrator to the address shown below by July 11, 2011. If a
substantial request for a public hearing is made within the requested
thirty day time frame, a public hearing will be held and a notice will
be given in the Federal Register and a newspaper of general
circulation. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be
denied by the Regional Administrator.

ADDRESSES: Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the individual
organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and a brief statement on information that
the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the
signature of the individual making the request or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity. Requests for
Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Karl Brooks, Regional
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency-Region 7, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    All documents relating to this determination are available for
review between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the following offices:
    (1) Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Public Drinking Water
Branch, 1101 Riverside Drive, Jefferson City, MO 65101. (2)
Environmental Protection Agency-Region 7, Water Wetlands and Pesticides
Division, Drinking Water Management Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neftali Hernandez-Santiago,
Environmental Protection Agency-Region 7, Drinking Water Management
Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has
determined to approve an application by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources to incorporate the following EPA National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: (1) Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (January 4, 2006, 71 FR 388) and (2) Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (January 5, 2006, 71 FR 654).
During the review of the state's drinking water regulations, EPA noted
an issue related to best available technology (BAT). Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA must specify the best available technology for
each maximum contaminant level (MCL) or maximum residual disinfectant
level (MRDL) that is set. Public water systems that are unable to
achieve an MCL or MRDL may be granted a variance on condition that the
system use the BATs, treatment techniques, or other means which the
Administrator finds are available (taking costs into consideration),
based upon an evaluation satisfactory to the State that indicates that
alternative sources of water are not reasonably available to the
system. Missouri allows variances to MCLs but has not adopted the BATs
listed in 40 CFR 141.64(a) and (b). Since Missouri has the authority to
grant variances, the state must also adopt the BATs specified by the
EPA Administrator, in order to be consistent with the language in
Sections 1415 and 1416 of the SDWA. The Missouri rule language
currently states that the system installs BATs that the state
(department) finds to be available; this language is less stringent
than the Federal statute requires. EPA Region 7 has negotiated a
resolution to this issue with MDNR, concluding that, until Missouri
promulgates a rule adopting EPA's BATs, MDNR agrees to issue variances
only to systems that have agreed, as a condition of being issued the
variance, to utilize BATs, treatment techniques, or other means, which
the EPA Administrator, taking cost into consideration, finds generally
available, in accordance with the requirements of Title 40 of the CFR
and Sections 1415 and 1416 of the SDWA. In light of Missouri's
agreement to issue variances only to systems that have agreed to
install BATs, treatment techniques, or other means consistent with
requirements of the SDWA and its implementing regulations, EPA has
determined that Missouri continues to meet requirements for primary
enforcement responsibility of the SDWA, as specified in 40 CFR 142.10.

    Authority:  Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.12(d) and 142.13.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-14297 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 11, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17599

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of Brendan Airways, LLC, d/b/a USA 3000 Airlines filed
4/20/2004  for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between New York/Newark (EWR) and Bermuda (BDA).  USA 3000 states that
it plans to begin service to Bermuda on this route on or about September
3, 2004, or as soon thereafter as all necessary Bermuda licenses have
been obtained.

Applicant rep:  Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted.

The above action was effective when taken:  May 11, 2004, through  May
11, 2006, or until 90 days after action on an application for an amended
certificate of public convenience and necessity for the same authority,
whichever occurs first.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend,
modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

(See Reverse Side)

2

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

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

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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 16302]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2015-0062]

Florida East Coast Railway's Request To Amend Its Positive Train
Control Safety Plan and Positive Train Control System

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

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on March
7, 2023, Florida East Coast Railway (FECR) submitted a request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plan
(PTCSP). As this RFA may involve a request for FRA's approval of
proposed material modifications to an FRA-certified positive train
control (PTC) system, FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public
comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTCSP.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by April 5, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2015-0062. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host
railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP
under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on March 7,
2023, FECR submitted an RFA to its PTCSP for its Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), and that RFA is available
in Docket No. FRA-2015-0062.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on FECR's RFA to its
PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted
within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent
practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR
236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTCSP
at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-05369 Filed 3-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P