In the proposal, we requested comments on requiring the in use measurement of NMHC because it was not explicitly listed in the settlement agreement. We noted that the 2007 hydrocarbon standards for heavy duty engines are written in terms of NMHC ( or NMHCE) not THC. In addition, recent testing indicates that the traditional relationship of NMHC to THC in diesel exhaust ( typically, NMHC is 98% of THC) is no longer applicable when aftertreatment like PM filters are used. Therefore, there is less of an EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 81 exact correlation between THC and NMHC emissions and the traditional way of correlating such emissions in our regulations could lead to overestimation of NMHC emissions. Finally, NMHC can be measured on vehicle without significant further effort.

As a result, we believed the measurement of NMHC was justified.

Engine manufacturers objected to mandatory NMHC measurement . They also objected to being required to measure THC from diesel engines with catalyzed PM filters,

arguing that the emission control technology results in negligible hydrocarbon emissions.

However, the engine manufacturers wanted to have the option of measuring NMHC instead of THC if hydrocarbon measurement were required.

We are requiring the measurement of hydrocarbons in the in use testing program and because NMHC is a regulated emission with an associated NTE standard, it must be reported. Commercially available portable measurement systems already report NMHC as the difference between measured THC and methane ( CH4) via dual FID/ cutter technology. This measurement technology already meets all the NMHC requirements in Part 1065. Additionally, part 1065 provides the flexibility to report NMHC as the difference between measured THC and measured methane ( CH4), or it may be reported as 0.98* THC. Therefore, manufacturers may optionally measure THC and report NMHC as 0.98* THC. However, we do not recommend this approach given the commercial availability of suitable portable technology that would yield a more accurate NMHC measurement. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 82 Regarding the comment about " negligible NMHC" emissions, we believe that certain engines and exhaust aftertreatment systems can emit NMHC emissions at or above the NTE standard. This is particularly possible if the aftertreatment technology uses a hydrocarbon based reducing agent, e. g., diesel fuel, to " regenerate" the aftertreatment system. Nonetheless, in cases where a manufacturer can demonstrate that and engine and aftertreatment system combination negligible NMHC emissions, the manufacturer may petition EPA to waive associated measurement requirement, as we proposed and are now adopting.

Manufacturers also commented that we should issue guidance that outlines reasonable conditions and procedures for manufacturers to follow in requesting an emission measurement waiver. We do not believe that a specific guidance document on this issue is necessary. The basic conditions and procedures for requesting an EPA waiver to avoid measuring a pollutant is obvious enough. Waivers will be reviewed on a case

bycase basis.

2. Portable Emission Measurement Systems   Status and Availability ( Note: This section is still under development.)

3. Measurement Accuracy Margin Development Program EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 83 Manufacturer comments on the NPRM raised objections to EPA's proposed inuse accuracy margin value of five percent applicable to all pollutants covered by the program. As EPA sought clarification on these comments from the manufacturers and input from CARB, it became evident that there were legitimate concerns regarding whether or not the proposed accuracy margins had been sufficiently proven. In an effort to provide further data to develop final accuracy margins, EPA, CARB, and the engine manufacturers ( through the Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA)) have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) that details a project for developing data driven accuracy margins for the gaseous emissions and PM fully enforceable programs. ( See section II. F. 3. i. of this preamble for more on the pilot program accuracy margins.) The MOA addresses the basic scope and objectives of the research, development and demonstration ( RDD) program, program milestones and schedules, implementation issues,

and intended implications for the regulations.

This RDD program is expected to be completed in two main phases. The first phase addresses gaseous emission accuracy margins, the second phase addresses PM accuracy margins. A full test plan has been prepared for the gaseous emissions RDD program; the test plan for the PM program is addressed in the MOA, and is to be completed well prior to initiation of the RDD testing effort. Each of the two programs is expected to be completed in time to have data driven accuracy margins for the respective fully enforceable programs, 2007 model year for gaseous emissions and 2008 for PM EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 84 emissions. EPA intends to promulgate these accuracy margins and any related provisions through rulemaking.

The gaseous emissions RDD program contains four basic components. First, it will assess emissions, exhaust flow, and torque measurement variability of PEMS units incremental to the laboratory measurement. Second, the effect of environmental parameters and of on vehicle time on measurement accuracy. Third, on vehicle/ trailer emission measurements versus PEMS emission measurements of the same operation. And fourth, it will consider manufacturer voluntary submissions of data that could be used to develop a margin component that accounts for the variability in key engine parameters used in the NTE brake specific emission calculations. All of this information will be used to develop and validate a computer model which will produce a data driven accuracy margin for each of the gaseous emissions to be proposed as discussed above.

The PM emissions RDD program, scheduled to begin in 2006, will assess the same basic questions as laid out above. Its schedule is offset by approximately one year to allow for full development of the PM RDD test program plan and continued development of PM PEMS capability. The PM accuracy margins and any related provisions are expected to be promulgated through rulemaking, with the intention that they apply to the 2008 model year fully enforceable program for PM emissions. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 85 The efforts under this MOA will be managed by EPA in close coordination with CARB and the involved engine manufacturers. Progress reports will be made publicly available. Interested readers are invited to review the full text of the MOA which is available in the public docket and at the EPA/ OTAQ website for this rule.

M. Pilot Program To ensure a successful launch of the fully enforceable program for gaseous emissions testing in calendar year 2007, there will be a more limited mandatory pilot program in calendar years 2005 and 2006 for gaseous pollutants ( i. e., nonmethane hydrocarbons ( NMHC), carbon monoxide ( CO), and oxides of nitrogen ( NOx)).

Similarly, the fully enforceable program for PM will be preceded by a pilot program for that pollutant in calendar years 2006 and 2007. Additionally, one or both of the pilot programs could be extended, and the fully enforceable program delayed, in the unlikely event that the process of identifying the final accuracy margins, discussed above, is significantly delayed beyond the originally scheduled completion dates.

We will designate engine families for testing under the pilot program as described in section II. B. of this preamble. In all likelihood, we will select 2002 through 2006 model year engines for testing under the gaseous pilot program, and 2002 through 2007 model year engines under the PM pilot program. As discussed above, we will only designate families that have been designed to comply with the NTE. After receiving our EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 86 selections, manufacturers will then conduct in use testing based on the Phase 1 testing criteria according to the scheme set forth in section II. C. of this preamble. Under those requirements, engine manufacturers must test up to 10 vehicles per designated engine family. However, Phase 1 testing will be limited to a total of five vehicles for engine manufacturers participating in the program to develop the final measurement accuracy margins for portable emission measurement systems as described in section II. L. 3. of this preamble. During the two year pilot programs for gaseous and PM emissions, both EPA and the heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers will gain valuable experience with the inuse testing protocols, and the generation, interpretation, and reporting of in use NTE emissions data.

The evaluation of these data for compliance purposes is limited to screening for exceedences of the FTP certification standards as well as the potential use of defeat devices as outlined in prior Agency guidance. The pilot program data could also be used to screen consent decree engines certified to pull ahead NTE requirements for compliance with the applicable NTE limits. If the test results for manufacturers subject to the full pilot program clearly show that the designated heavy duty diesel engine family passes the Phase 1 testing criteria ( i. e., 5 out of 5, 5 out of 6, or 8 out of 10 vehicles pass), no further testing will be is required of that engine family in that year. If the designated engine family does not clearly pass the test criteria ( i. e., 7 or fewer out of 10 vehicles pass) we will not pursue any form of remedial action based solely on that data. For manufacturers participating in the program to develop the final accuracy measurement margins that must EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 87 test five vehicles per designated engine family, we will likewise not pursue any form of remedial action based solely on that data. However, we may utilize these latter test results in conjunction with our own test data and other information to assess or pursue any appropriate enforcement or regulatory action.

We proposed that the certificate of conformity for an engine family may be voided if the engine manufacturer did not meet its obligations under the in use testing rules.

International Truck and Engine Company commented that during the settlement negotiations, all parties recognized that the 2005 and 2006 pilot programs must remain flexible in order for it to work. Therefore, the potential consequences of voiding a certificate of conformity for failing to strictly adhere to the 2005 and 2006 pilot programs directly contradicts the cooperative nature of the in use testing program.

We agree with the commenter that the pilot program needs to remain flexible and cooperative in nature. However, we are retaining the provision for the pilot program as a way to assure that all engine manufacturers participate in that part of the mandatory in use testing pilot program. We do not anticipate a reason to revoke a certificate of conformity if the manufacturer shows a good faith effort in conducting the pilot program.

N. Public Availability of In Use Testing Data We noted in the proposal that in use test data reported under the program would be available to the general public for review and analysis. The engine manufacturers EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 12 If EPA receives a request under the Freedom of Information Act for records relating to manufacturers' required in use testing, it is EPA's standard operating procedure to initially deny the requestor any responsive records containing information submitted under CBI claims by the 88 objected to providing public access to all test data and underlying information. They specifically stated that information pertaining to how a manufacturer " controls" an engine when achieving in use emissions compliance is confidential business information and must be treated as such. Manufacturers stated that public information should be limited to emission results and vehicle pass ratios.

Our goal is to ensure the confidentiality a manufacturer's confidential business information ( CBI) while making the in use test program as transparent and useful to others as possible. After carefully considering how to balance these competing interests,

we will make the following information publically available upon request after the test program for an engine family has been completed: engine family, model, and rating identification; description of test route and test conditions; engine speed and torque ( when broadcast), mass emissions, and work performed each at a 1 Hz interval; summary emissions results ( for each valid NTE event); vehicle pass ratio; and any other information needed to calculate the summary emissions results and the NTE zone for that engine. We will also make available a generic indication as to whether a deficiency or carve out has been encountered for each second of the test. All other information designated by a manufacturer as CBI will be safeguarded and withheld from public release by the Agency subject to EPA's CBI regulations. 12 Such information will include, but is not limited to, EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 manufacturers. The manufacturers who submitted the information under CBI claims will be required to substantiate their claims, and the EPA Office of General Counsel will make a final determination of confidentiality for the information. See 40 CFR 2.204 and 205.

89 engine operating and control parameters designated CBI during the certification process ( including those associated with auxiliary emissions control devices) and the information necessary to identify specific and complete regions of the NTE control zone where: 1) a manufacturer has been granted an allowance by EPA to temporarily exceed the NTE standards under certain limited circumstances ( i. e., deficiencies), or 2) the emissions contribution from a portion of the NTE zone has been limited in determining compliance with the NTE standards ( i. e., carve outs).

O. Implications for Other EPA Programs 1. EPA Testing and Supplemental Information EPA reserves its preexisting authority to conduct repeat testing or initiate our own in use testing of a manufacturer's heavy duty diesel engine family. The purpose of this testing would be primarily to verify and supplement, not duplicate, the testing program to be conducted by manufacturers. Therefore, we do not intend to conduct routine in use NTE testing of engines or engine families that satisfy the Phase 1 testing criteria, unless new information indicates that a potential nonconformity exists. We will also inform and EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 90 invite the affected manufacturer to observe any in use testing that we may conduct which is related to this program.

2. Selective Enforcement Audit ( SEA) Testing We will limit the existing SEA program after full implementation of the manufacturer run, in use program solely to instances where credible evidence indicates the existence of a nonconformity. Such evidence may include: past noncompliance occurring in new engines or very early in the life of in use engines, a manufacturer's quality assurance/ quality control ( QA/ QC) reporting that identifies or otherwise indicates a problem, a significant number of consumer complaints or defect reports, or test data of any type.

In general, we anticipate that a robust, mature manufacturer run in use program would significantly reduce the role SEA plays in EPA's compliance program. Assembly line emissions audits ensure that the prototype emission control designs approved during the certification process successfully transfer into mass produced engines. More specifically, SEAs evaluate whether manufacturers' design enough compliance margin into the certified emissions levels to account for the emissions variability inherent to the design and manufacture of a particular engine and emissions control system. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 91 It is expected that the in use program will require manufacturers to target emissions performance with enough compliance margin below the standards to account for expected in use deterioration, and that this margin will exceed normal emissions variability experienced in new engines. The use of aftertreatment as the primary means for emissions control is expected further to reduce EPA's reliance on SEAs as a compliance tool. These systems typically function at high efficiency levels and without catastrophic failure on newer engines. If problems were to occur, it is often only apparent after the aftertreatment equipped engine has been in service for some period of time. During SEA testing, the aftertreatment system will have experienced little mileage accumulation and,

therefore, is expected perform at essentially undeteriorated levels. For these reasons, EPA believes SEA testing will be less critical for a vigorous enforcement program.

As mentioned previously, there are circumstances where SEAs would still be warranted. Those situations typically involve known or expected problems which occur relatively early in the engine's useful life, but have not been remedied by the manufacturer.

In those cases, it is less expensive and more effective to remedy the problem well in advance of in use testing. EPA is also interested in occasionally conducting SEAs for small engine families that may not be the focus of testing under the manufacturer run,

inuse testing program. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 92 3. Deterioration Factor Testing Under our current emissions certification program requirements, manufacturers of heavy duty diesel engines are allowed considerable flexibility in generating deterioration factors ( DFs). The regulations only generally specify how to stabilize the engine system prior to conducting the durability testing. All other aspects of generating DFs, such as the durability test cycle and the duration of the testing, are left to the good engineering judgement of the engine manufacturer. Given this latitude, manufacturers have settled on a fairly standard set of methodologies for generating DFs.

Deterioration factors are generated in the laboratory using an engine dynamometer. After the engine is stabilized, it is exercised over a durability driving cycle for a period of time or mileage established by the engine manufacturer as mentioned previously. Emissions are measured over this cycle at intervals specified by the engine manufacturer. The measured emissions are plotted as a function of time or mileage and a statistical curve fitting method is used to calculate emissions deterioration over time.

Since the emission tests are not typically performed to the end of engine's useful life, the curve fit is extrapolated to estimate useful life emissions. Either the measured initial,

early life emissions are subtracted from the extrapolated useful life emissions ( additive DF), or the useful life emissions are divided by the early life emissions ( multiplicative DF),

depending on the emissions control technology, to calculate the DF and arrive at the official deteriorated certification test results. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 93 The 2004 and 2007 low emission standards required for heavy duty diesel engines has placed the efficacy of how these traditional DF methodologies are developed and applied under increased scrutiny by both EPA and the engine manufacturers. The reasons are twofold. First, aftertreatment and add on emissions control technologies such as cooled EGR are more prone to deterioration compared to past engine designs. Second,

compliance with the emissions standards becomes more sensitive to the uncertainty in the emissions trends resulting from these common DFs methods as the stringency of the standards increases. In the past, manufacturers could target emissions far enough below the relatively relaxed emissions standards in order to account for the inherent DF variability. The increased stringency of the 2004 and 2007 standards have reduced those traditional compliance margins, leaving less headroom to account for DF uncertainty.

Exacerbating the issue is the traditional use of multiplicative DFs which mathematically result in a larger deteriorated emissions value compared to an additive approach.

The most likely solution for addressing the loss in confidence with current DF methods in the near term is for EPA and the engine manufacturers to work cooperatively to establish more robust accelerated DF methodologies in the laboratory. This would provide more certain deteriorated certification emission results. Discussions on such a solution have already started on an informal basis with individual manufacturers and will become more structured with industry in the near future. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 94 As a longer term approach, it may be possible to reduce or eliminate the current laboratory based DF methods by using the test results generated as part of the proposed manufacturer run in use testing program or test data from other in use testing that utilizes portable emission measurement systems to more accurately predict in use deterioration.

For example, a manufacturer may be able to demonstrate that DFs generated from the inuse data are superior predictors of useful life deterioration, or at least correlate well with the more traditional laboratory approach to developing these factors. To this end, we intend to assess the generation and submission of DFs based on the proposed 2005 and 2006 pilot program. We will examine potential ways to diminish or eliminate burdens on manufacturers of generating and submitted DFs, while still generating DFs that accurately predict in use deterioration. Any appropriate revisions for generating DFs would be promulgated in a subsequent rulemaking action, particularly in the rulemaking reexamining the accuracy margin discussed in II. F. above.

P. Limitations of Warranty Claims An exceedence of the NTE found through the in use testing program is not by itself sufficient to show a breach of the warranty under Section 207( a)( 1)( A) or ( B). A breach of this warranty would also require either: 1) that, at the time of sale, the engine or vehicle was designed, built and equipped in a manner that does not conform in all material respects reasonably related to emission controls to the engine as described in the application for certification and covered by the certificate, or 2) a defect in materials and EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 95 workmanship of a component or part that causes the vehicle or engine to fail to conform to the applicable regulations for its useful life. To the extent that in use NTE testing does not reveal such a material deficiency at the time of sale in the design or manufacture of an engine compared to the certified engine, or a defect in the materials and workmanship of a component or part, test results showing an exceedence of the NTE by itself would not show a breach of the warranty under Section 207( a)( 1).

III. Economic Impacts The costs associated with the rule to implement a manufacturer run, in use NTE testing program for heavy duty diesel engines depends primarily on how many vehicles are eventually tested under the Phase 1 and 2 testing schemes. This is difficult to estimate because the actual number for each designated engine family depends on how may vehicles pass, or fail, the vehicle pass criteria at various points in the tiered testing design. It is also highly dependent on the how manufacturers chose to conduct the test program and the availability of test vehicles. However, based on our experience with in use emissions testing, including the development and use of portable measurement systems for compliance testing, we identified a set of reasonable testing scenarios that allow us to estimate the potential costs associated with the program. This analysis is based on 13 manufacturers who certified 71 engine families in 2005. Costs are in 2004 dollars. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 96 Our analysis shows a total cost of approximately $ 1.6 million per year for the case where no manufacturer must test more than the minimum number of vehicles under Phase 1 ( i. e., 5 vehicles per engine family). If all manufacturers were to test the maximum number of vehicles required under Phase 1 ( i. e., 10 vehicles per engine family), the total cost would be about $ 1.7 million per year. In the most unlikely worst case scenario where all manufacturers must test the maximum vehicles in Phase 1 and 2 ( i. e., 20 vehicles per engine family), the total cost would be about $ 2.1 million per year. Our best estimate of the overall cost of the proposed program is $ 1.7 million per year for the entire industry.

The Technical Support Document for this rule contains a detailed description of our economic analysis.

Overall, while not insignificant, these costs are quite low compared to other in use compliance programs. Moreover, they are especially attractive in comparison to a more traditional in use testing program where the engine must be extracted from the vehicle and tested on an engine dynamometer in the laboratory. In that situation, each engine test could cost $ 25,000 if the vehicle could be procured from an in use fleet.

IV. Public Participation ( NOTE: The remaining sections are from the proposal and are being updated.)

We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this process. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 97 A. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document. We will accept comments for the period indicated under " DATES" above. If you have an interest in the program described in this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking. We request comment on various topics throughout this proposal.

Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with parts of the proposed program, we encourage you to suggest and analyze alternate approaches to accomplish these same goals described in this proposal. You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary information, to our Air Docket ( see " Addresses") before the end of the comment period. You should also send a copy to the Contact Person listed above ( see " For Further Information Contact").

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked " late." EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 98 otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Section IV. B. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

B. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0072. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 99 CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?

We will hold one public hearing in Washington, D. C. The hearing will be held on the following date and start at the following time, and continue until everyone present has had an opportunity to speak.

Hearing Location Date Time U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1310 L Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

Telephone: ( 202) 343 9540 Fax: ( 202) 343 2804 July 15, 2004 10: 00 a. m. EDT If you would like to present testimony at a public hearing, we ask that you notify the contact person listed above at least ten days before the hearing. You should estimate the time you will need for your presentation and identify any needed audio/ visual equipment. We suggest that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 100 EPA panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the hearing.

We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based on the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the morning of each hearing.

In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.

We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter.

D. Comment Period The comment period for this rule will end on August 16, 2004.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 101 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a " significant regulatory action" as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 102 jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or communities;

Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

EPA has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The Agency proposes to collect information to ensure compliance with the provisions in this rule. Information collection requirements related to engine manufacturers are in EPA ICR # 1684.07. Section 208( a) of the Clean Air Act requires that manufacturers provide information the Administrator may reasonably require to determine compliance with the regulations; submission of the information is EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 103 therefore mandatory. We will consider confidential all information meeting the requirements of Section 208( c) of the Clean Air Act.

As shown in Table V 1, the total annual burden associated with this proposal is about 720 hours and $ 48,401, based on a projection of 14 respondents. The estimated burden for engine manufacturers is a total estimate for both new and existing reporting requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Table V 1.  Estimated Burden for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Industry Sector Number of Respondents Annual burden hours Annual costs Engines 14 720 $ 48,401 EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 104 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,

including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number OAR 2004 0072. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ` Addresses' section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA.

Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 105 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are defined as: ( 1) a small business that is primarily engaged in the manufacturing of diesel engines as defined by NAIC codes 333618 with less than 1000 employees ( based on Small Business Administration size standards); ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities,

EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. The test procedures that are established by this proposed rule pertain to heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers. EPA has previously analyzed this category for EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 106 impact on small entities when emission standards were finalized for this category of engines in October of 2000 ( 65 FR 59895, October 6, 2000). At that time, EPA noted that only two small entities were known to be affected. Those entities were small businesses that certify alternative fuel engines or vehicles, either newly manufactured or modified from previously certified gasoline engines. The test procedures proposed by this action do not pertain to the engines manufactured by these small businesses and recent analysis supports that there are no additional small businesses that would be impacted by this proposed action. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law.

104 4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 107 the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.

This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities.

EPA has determined that this rule contains no federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $ 100 million to the private sector in any single year. EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to achieve the emission compliance goals of the rule. The costs associated with the proposal are discussed in the Draft Technical Support Document.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 108 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications ( i. e., the rules will not have substantial direct effects 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). Those requirements include providing all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 109 This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with representatives STAPPA/ ALAPCO, which represents state and local air pollution officials.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 110 This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on engine manufacturers and ship builders. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they purchase and use equipment with regulated engines. Thus,

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2)

concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5

501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 111 The effects of ozone and PM on children's health were addressed in detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish the NAAQS for these pollutants, and EPA is not revisiting those issues here. EPA believes, however, that the emission reductions from the strategies proposed in this rulemaking will further reduce air toxic emissions and the related adverse impacts on children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211,

" Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,

or Use" ( 66 FR. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,

and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 112 bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rule is not related to any available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority Statutory authority for the proposed regulations is provided by the Clean Air Act,

as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 7401 et seq., in particular, sections 202 208 of the Act, 42 USC § 7521 7542.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 86 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. EPA Deliberative Material Submitted for OMB review on May 6, 2005 113 Dated:

___________________________________

Steven Johnson,

Administrator


[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 48666]
[DOCID:fr11au10-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2029-000]

Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

August 4, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 August 24, 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(s) 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 docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19774 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36646-36648]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0247]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Nashville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from
mile marker 191.1 to 191.5 of the Cumberland River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
near Korean Veterans Bridge, Nashville, TN, during Music City Grand
Prix on August 6 through August 8, 2021. This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 2 p.m. on August 6, 2021 until 7
p.m. on August 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0247 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Third Class Benjamin
Gardner and Marine Safety Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. the Coast Guard
was notified of the event without ample time for the NPRM process. We
must establish this regulation by August 6, 2021 and lack sufficient
time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those
comments before issuing this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the
effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest
because immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the
participants and vessels during the Music City Grand Prix Indy Car Race
starting on August 6, 2021.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
Music City Grand Prix from August 6, 2021 until August 8, 2021, will be
a safety concern for anyone within a 0.4 mile radius of the Korean
Veterans Bridge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
while the Music City Grand Prix is occurring.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The COTP is establishing a safety zone on the following dates
during these time periods: From 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 6, 2021;
from noon to 5 p.m. on August 7, 2021; and from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. on
August 8, 2021. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters
between mile marker 191.1 and 191.5 on the Cumberland River in
Nashville, TN. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the
safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled Music City Grand Prix. No vessel or person would be
permitted to enter the safety zone

without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Cumberland River before or after
the time of the events on each day. Moreover, the Coast Guard would
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves a safety zone lasting 12 hours spread over the course of 3
days that would prohibit entry within .4 miles of the Korean Veterans
Bridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0247 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0247  Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Nashville, TN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the

Cumberland River from mile marker 191.1 to mile marker 191.5.
    (b) Definitions: As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This rule will be enforced from 2 p.m.
until 6:30 p.m. on August 6, 2021, from noon until 5 p.m. on August 7,
2021, and from 4:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. on August 8, 2021.

    Dated: July 1, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-14644 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42655-42658]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1028; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-068-AD;
Amendment 39-17901; AD 2014-14-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -
114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of broken aft engine mount retainers.
This AD requires inspecting the aft engine mount retainers for surface
finish, and for cracks and failure, and replacement if necessary. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of retainer brackets of the aft
engine mount and consequent loss of the locking feature of the nuts of
the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount
engine link no longer being secured to the aft engine mount.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 27, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 27,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1028; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    For Goodrich Corporation service information identified in this AD,
contact Goodrich Corporation, Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula
Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318-111
and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115
airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on December 18, 2013 (78 FR 76572).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0050, dated March 5, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

During in-service inspections, several aft engine mount retainers,
fitted on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56-5/5B engines, have been
found broken.
The results of the investigations highlight that two different types
of surface finish have been applied (respectively bright and dull
material finishes), and that dull finish adversely affects the
strength of the retainer with regard to fatigue properties of the
part.
The pins which attach the engine link to the aft mount are secured
by two nuts, which do not have a self-locking feature; this function
is provided by the retainer brackets. In case of failure of the
retainer bracket, the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and
outer pins is lost; as a result, these nuts could subsequently
become loose.
In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the potential to also
lose the pins, in which case the aft mount link will no longer be
secured to the aft engine mount. The same locking feature is used
for the three link assemblies of the aft mount.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time
detailed visual inspection (DVI) of the aft engine mount to identify
the affected dull finish retainers [and for cracks and failure] and
replace these [retainers] with serviceable retainers. This [EASA] AD
also prohibits installation of any dull finish aft engine mount
retainers.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1028-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following
presents the comment received on the NPRM (78 FR 76572, December 18,
2013) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Add Certain Retainer Brackets

    Mr. Michael Raphael stated that understanding of the issue
(cracking or failure of the aft engine mount retainer) has changed
since the preliminary discovery with dull brackets, and that bright
brackets have been detected with the same issue. Mr. Raphael explained
that vibration is the root cause, and the dull surface finish (with
pitting) is a potential aggravating factor. Mr. Raphael also stated
that EASA and its airplane type certificate holder are preparing a
``phase 2 containment'' that is based on the latest technical findings.
    We infer that the commenter wants us to add brackets with the
bright surface

finish to this AD. We acknowledge that potential concerns with the
bright brackets have been identified and are being investigated.
However, we disagree to delay this final rule, since we have determined
that an unsafe condition exists and that expanding the applicability of
this AD to include retainer brackets with a bright surface finish would
require additional rulemaking. We find that delaying this action would
be inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. Once we
complete a thorough risk assessment of brackets with a bright surface,
we might consider additional rulemaking. We have not changed this final
rule in this regard.

Changes to This Final Rule

    We have revised paragraphs (i)(2) and (j) of this final rule by
removing the term ``serviceable.'' These changes are made to avoid
ambiguity and misinterpretation of type of finish on the replacement
retainer. We do not want operators to polish affected retainers as a
method of compliance with this final rule.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (78 FR 76572, December 18, 2013), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (78 FR 76572, December 18,
2013) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013), in which the commenter stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM discussed previously, Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out
that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the
foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the
FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an
approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition,
before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with
the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the
manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and
expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. We also have
decided not to include a generic reference to either the ``delegated
agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design organization
approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific delegation
approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH in the
Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD

with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We
have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 76572, December 18, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 76572, December 18, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per
inspection cycle (for two engines) per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $217,005 per inspection cycle (for two engines), or
$255 per inspection cycle per product (for two engines).
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of
$10,085 per engine. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1028; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 (AD):

2014-14-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-17901. Docket No. FAA-2013-1028;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-068-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 27, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of broken aft engine mount
retainers. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of retainer
brackets of the aft engine mount and consequent loss of the locking
feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins. Loss of the pins
will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured to
the aft engine mount.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection of the aft engine mount retainers for surface
finish (dull or bright), and for cracks and failure, in accordance
with Section 4.2.2, ``Inspection Requirements,'' of Airbus Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27,
2013, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Exception to Paragraph (g) of This AD

    The actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD are not
required to be done on airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers
4942 and higher, provided a review of maintenance records verifies
that no aft engine mount retainers have been replaced since first
flight of the airplane.

(i) Repetitive Inspection and Retainer Replacement for Dull Finish
Retainers

    If, during the detailed inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, any installed dull finish aft engine mount retainer is
found without cracks and not failed: Do the actions specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 25 flight cycles after doing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Repeat the detailed inspection specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Within 50 flight cycles after doing the first detailed
inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Replace all dull
finish retainers with new retainers, in accordance with Section
<IP_ADDRESS>, ``Replacement Procedure,'' of Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev.
2, dated February 27, 2013.

(j) Replacement of Cracked or Failed Retainers

    If, during any detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD, any installed aft engine mount retainer is found cracked or
failed: Before further flight, replace all affected aft engine mount
retainers with new retainers, in accordance with Section 4.2.3,
``Replacement Procedure,'' of Airbus AOT

A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013.

(k) Parts Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
aft engine mount retainer with a dull finish on any airplane. The
instructions of Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27,
2013; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service
Bulletin RA32071-146, Rev. 2, dated July 26, 2012; may be used to
verify the correct finish of the part.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT
A71N001-12, Rev. 1, dated August 9, 2012, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(n) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections
21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane
can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided no dull
finish aft engine mount retainers that are cracked or have failed
are installed.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-
0050, dated March 5, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1028-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (p)(3), (p)(4), and (p)(5) of this AD.

(p) 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) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A71N001-12, Rev. 2,
dated February 27, 2013. The first page of this document contains
the document number, revision, and date; no other page of this
document contains this information.
    (ii) Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-146, Rev. 2, dated July
26, 2012.
    (3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) For Goodrich Corporation service information identified in
this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon
Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 3, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16536 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1610-1611]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

January 2, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP95-408-069.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp submits First Revised
Eighty-fourth Revised Sheet 25 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second

Revised Volume 1, to become effective 2/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-383-083.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission Inc. submits Fourth Revised
Sheet 1415, Fifth Revised Sheet 1416 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-255-079.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Filing of TransColorado Gas
Transmission Company.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071231-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP06-200-041.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet 8C and Original Sheet 9N to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised
Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-148-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Twenty-Sixth
Revised Sheet 25 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1
and First Revised Volume 2, to be effective 2/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-149-000.
    Applicants: Gulf States Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Gulf States Transmission Corporation submits Third
Revised Sheet 5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become
effective 2/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-150-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits its
Penalty Revenue Crediting Report for the 2006--2007 contract year
pursuant to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-151-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits its Penalty
Revenue Crediting Report to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-152-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Corporation informs FERC
that they do not have any Penalty Revenue Credits Report for the 2006-
2007 contract year.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-153-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Crossroads Pipeline Company informs FERC that they do
not have any Penalty Credits to report for the 2006-2007 contract year
under its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20080102-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 14, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 proceedings 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 e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-145 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P