[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27936-27937]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12896]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0212; FRL-9978- 97--Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration; Revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut. This revision affects provisions applicable to
greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the EPA's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit program. Connecticut requested the revision
in response to the June 23, 2014, U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA and the April 10, 2015,
Amended Judgment by the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible
Regulation v. EPA. The intended effect of this action is to clarify
that the State's PSD rules do not require a source to obtain a permit
solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit (PTE)
GHGs: Above the PSD applicability thresholds for new major sources; or
for which there is a significant emissions increase from a
modification. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0212 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are
available at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Review
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On February 28, 2018, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the treatment of GHGs in the context of
the PSD permit program under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revision
consists of removing the requirement that sources would have to obtain
a PSD permit solely due to its GHG emissions, commonly known as ``Step
2'' sources.
    On January 2, 2011, GHG emissions were, for the first time, covered
by the PSD and title V operating permit programs. See 75 FR 17004,
(April 2, 2010). To establish a process for phasing in the permitting
requirements for stationary sources of GHGs under the CAA PSD and title
V programs, on June 3, 2010, the EPA published a final rule entitled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule'' (hereinafter referred to as the GHG Tailoring Rule).
See 75 FR 31514. In Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, which began on
January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD and title V
requirements to sources of GHG emissions only if they were subject to
PSD or title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of pollutants other
than GHGs. These sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.'' In Step
2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, which applied as of July 1, 2011, the PSD
and title V permitting program requirements applied to some sources
that were classified as major sources based solely on their GHG
emissions or potential to emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD permitting
requirements to modifications of otherwise major sources that would
increase only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA regulations. EPA
generally described the sources covered by PSD during Step 2 of the GHG
Tailoring Rule as ``Step 2 sources'' or ``GHG-only sources.''
    The United States Supreme Court invalidated the EPA's regulation of
Step 2 sources in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S Ct.
2427 (2014). In accordance with that decision, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the federal
regulations that implemented Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule. See
Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606 Fed. Appx. 6, 7
(D.C. Cir. 2015). Subsequently, the EPA removed the vacated elements
from its rules. See 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 2015). The EPA therefore
has the authority to approve a state's request to remove Step 2 sources
from the SIP.

II. EPA's Review

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that the EPA shall not approve a
revision to the SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment (of the NAAQS)

and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 7501) or any
other requirement of the CAA. The EPA has reviewed the SIP revision and
is proposing to find the revision is consistent with Section 110(l) of
the CAA.
    The EPA's analysis and rationale for proposing to approve
Connecticut's SIP revision request can be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) associated with this action. In addition to the
finding under Section 110(l), the EPA reviewed the SIP revision to
ensure it is consistent with the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166,
which contain the requirements for a state's PSD permit program
regulations. The EPA's May 15, 2018 TSD (which is included in the
docket for this action) includes the state requirements revised or
removed, a list of the relevant federal provisions relating to the
State's revisions, and a description of how each state provision
complies with the federal requirements.
    During the EPA's review, the EPA noted that there was a
typographical error in the certified copy of the regulatory changes
Connecticut sent to the EPA. The difference between the certified copy
and the state-adopted regulations was due to a clerical error.
Connecticut subsequently submitted a revised and correct certified copy
of the regulatory changes on May 7, 2018.

III. Proposed Action

    Based on our analysis, the EPA is proposing to approve the
Connecticut SIP revision, which was submitted on February 28, 2018, for
the removal of the requirement that sources must obtain a PSD permit
based solely on a source's GHG emissions. The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant
matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate
revised RSCA Section 22a-174-3a(a)(1) entitled ``Applicability,'' RSCA
Section 22a-174-3a(j)(1) for when control technology applies, and RSCA
Sections 22a-174-3a(k)(1) and (2) regarding applicability of GHGs for
new major stationary sources and major modifications. All three state
regulations were effective February 8, 2018. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA
office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-12896 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33512-33514]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0225]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, PNSY Entrance Structure Heavy Lift Project--
Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters in the Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of persons, property, and the
marine environment from the potential safety hazards associated with
the construction and heavy lift operations at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard Dry Dock No. 1. When enforced, this rule will prohibit persons
and vessels from entering into the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Northern New England or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from June 25, 2021,
through August 31, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from June 16, 2021, until June 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0225 in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Shaun Doyle, Sector Northern New England Waterways
Management Division, 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
NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Northern New England

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 6, 2021, a construction company contracted by Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard (PNSY) notified the Coast Guard that in mid-May they
intend to tow the Weeks 2701 barge with the new PNSY Dry Dock No.1
Superflood Basin entrance structure, commonly referred to as the
``structure,'' aboard to PNSY for final lifting and setting. The
structure is a 5500 ton pre-fabricated concrete caisson. The
construction is critical to the PNSY Superflood Basin project. The lift
and placement of the structure will take approximately two tide cycles
and requires no wake or swell from passing vessels or weather during
critical and sensitive lifting operations. The heavy lift is critical
to the success of the PNSY Superflood Basin project and the future of
PNSY operations. The heavy lift will be north of the federal navigation
channel in the area of PNSY Berth No. 1.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable. A delay or cancellation of the currently ongoing PNSY
Superflood Basin project in order to accommodate a full notice and
comment period would delay necessary operations, result in increased
costs, and delay the date when the PNSY Superflood Basin is expected to
open for critical naval operations. For these reasons, the Coast Guard
finds it impracticable to delay this regulation for purposes of a
comment period.
    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 impracticable for the same reasons specified above.

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
Northern New England (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the heavy lift will be a safety concern for anyone
transiting the Piscataqua River in the vicinity of the PNSY Berth 1.
This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while during
the heavy lift.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from June 16, 2021,
through August 31, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters within 350 yards of position 43[deg]04'50.38'' N,
070[deg]44'39.62'' W (NAD83) of the Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH,
in the vicinity of PNSY Berth No. 1. The size and duration of this
safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these
navigable waters during heavy lift operations.
    We anticipate enforcing the safety zone during the heavy lift
operations for installation of the structure during three high tide
cycles sometime from July 1, 2021, through July 4, 2021. No vessel may
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the zone during periods
of enforcment enforcement unless permission is obtained from the COTP
or a designated representative. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the
safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative on VHF-FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or
designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety
zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to
Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as
appropriate. The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective
through August 31, 2021 in case the project is delayed due to
unforeseen circumstances.

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 following
reasons: (1) The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of
the Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH, (2) the zone will only be
enforced during actual lift operations, (3) persons or vessels desiring
to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

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 rule involves a
safety zone lasting approximately 24 to 36 hours that will prohibit
entry within 350 yards of position 43[deg]04'50.38'' N,
070[deg]44'39.62'' W (NAD83), Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH, during
heavy lift operations in Berth No. 1 at PNSY. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60a 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 amends
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.T01-0225 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0225  Safety Zone; Safety Zone, PNSY Entrance Structure
Heavy Lift Project--Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within a 350-yards radius of position 43[deg]04'50.38'' N,
070[deg]44'39.62'' W (NAD83) on Piscataqua River, Portsmouth, NH.
    (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 COTP
Northern New England 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 channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector Northern
New England Command Center). 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 period[s]. This section will be enforced June 16,
2021, through August 31, 2021, during active heavy lift operations and
other instances which may cause a hazard to navigation, as well as when
deemed necessary by the COTP, Sector Northern New England.

    Dated: June 11, 2021.
B.J. LeFebvre,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2021-13598 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 45631]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2472-000]

Rancho Seco Solar II LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Rancho Seco Solar II LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 12, 2020.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16418 Filed 7-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Dennis P. Ward, Ph. D. Regulatory Affairs Manager ( 636) 737 6631 April 1, 2003 Document Processing Desk ( Amend) Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7504C) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 266A, Crystal Mall 2 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 4501 Attn: Dennis Szuhay, Team Leader 90 Subj: Application to amend permit 524 EUP 93; request for extension Dear Mr. Szuhay:

Please find enclosed an application to amend and extend the Experimental Use Permit for Corn Event MON 863 ( 524 EUP 93). This application replaces our previous application, dated December 11, 2002. Since our December application was submitted, EPA granted a Section 3 registration for Corn Event MON 863 ( 524 528). However, an extension of 524 EUP 93 is still needed in order for Monsanto to continue development work on combined insecticidal trait hybrids created by crossing MON 863 corn lines to other lines containing registered plant incorporated protectants. Since this EUP is not needed for further testing of just MON 863, we have revised the requested acreage downward.

Enclosed with this letter are:   Transmittal Document ( 1 copy)   Volume 1: Administrative Materials in Support of Application to Amend the Experimental Use Permit for Event MON 863: Corn Rootworm Protected Corn ( ZMIR13L), Permit No. 524 EUP 93 ( 3 copies)

Should you require any additional information regarding this submission please feel free to contact Dr. Russell Schneider in our Washington office ( 202 383 2866) or me directly ( 636 737 6631).

Sincerely,

Dennis P. Ward cc: Mike Mendelsohn, EPA/ OPP/ BPPD Russell Schneider, Monsanto 00 CR 030E 9


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 26319]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Financial
Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on December 22, 2014. Information is used to determine if
licensees have complied with financial responsibility requirements
(including maximum probable loss determination) as set forth in FAA
regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0601.
    Title: Financial Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of an information
collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 76436). This collection is
applicable upon concurrence of requests for conducting commercial
launch operations as prescribed in 14 CFR parts 401, et al, Commercial
Space Transportation Licensing Regulation. A commercial space launch
services provider must complete the Launch Operators License, Launch-
Specific License or Experimental Permit in order to gain authorization
for conducting commercial launch operations.
    Respondents: 6 commercial space launch services providers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 600 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2015.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-11043 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89008-89009]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0038]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 17 individuals from the
requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any
loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on December 5, 2023. The
exemptions expire on December 5, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, (FMCSA-2023-0038) in the keyword box and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Older-Newer),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records
notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System), which can be
reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments are searchable by the name of
the submitter.

II. Background

    On October 31, 2023, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 17 individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (88 FR 74557). The public comment
period ended on November 30, 2023, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified

to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statutes allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end
of the 5-year period. However, FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel.
The Agency conducted an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information, including the root cause of the respective
seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure
history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's
last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and
the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition,
the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to
the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of
seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. A summary of each applicant's seizure history was
discussed in the November 30, 2023, Federal Register notice (88 FR
74557) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These 17 applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 29 years
while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable medication
treatment regimen for the last 2 years. In each case, the applicant's
treating physician verified his or her seizure history and supports the
ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds further that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in Sec.
391.41(b)(8) would likely achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption, consistent with the applicable standard
in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1).

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and include the following: (1)
each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual
reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of
treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each
driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as
defined by Sec.  390.5T; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder
prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited
above:

James Byrd (TN)
Francis Chiacchieri (MA)
Lane Freeman (FL)
Jeffrey Gomall (MN)
Christine Green-McClure (NY)
Nicholas Hayes (VA)
Alex Hohman (PA)
Michelle Hughes (NC)
Michael Keys (PA)
Matthew Lee (GA)
Lisa Martin (NY)
Pedro Martinez (TX)
Cecil Massey (MS)
James Phillips (NC)
Joshua Pike (ME)
Alex Ramerth (MN)
Maciej Skrzyniarz (IL)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49
U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28402 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58774-58777]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0044; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-126-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    An accumulator cylinder had material defects and suffered an in-
flight burst failure causing damage to the aircraft structure. * * *

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 16,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0044;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-126-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0076, dated March 21, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An accumulator cylinder had material defects and suffered an in-
flight burst failure causing damage to the aircraft structure. This
resulted in the issue of EASA Emergency AD 2006-0061-E [we issued AD
2006-23-12 to address that EASA AD] that required the identification
and check of cylinders from known suspect batches. Further
investigations and checks by the accumulator manufacturer have
concluded that all cylinders from a particular supplier may not have
been correctly inspected at manufacture. To prevent the risk of
further failures, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires all
accumulators with cylinders from this supplier to be identified and
inspected prior to re-installation.

    The corrective action includes replacing any accumulator found to
have a defect. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI
in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.29-047, dated October 3, 2006. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $320, or $320 per product.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace
Regional Aircraft): Docket No. FAA-2007-0044; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-126-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 16, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes; and Model Avro 146-
RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any
category, all models, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29:
Hydraulic power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    An accumulator cylinder had material defects and suffered an in-
flight burst failure causing damage to the aircraft structure. This
resulted in the issue of EASA Emergency AD 2006-0061-E [we issued AD
2006-23-12 to address that EASA AD] that required the identification
and check of cylinders from known suspect batches. Further
investigations and checks by the accumulator manufacturer have
concluded that all cylinders from a particular supplier may not have
been correctly inspected at manufacture. To prevent the risk of
further failures, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires all
accumulators with cylinders from this supplier to be identified and
inspected prior to re-installation.

    The corrective action includes replacing any accumulator found to
have a defect.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD,
identify the installed accumulator in accordance with paragraph 2.C.
of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.29-047, dated October 3, 2006, which makes reference to APPH
Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-03, dated July 2006.
    (2) When an accumulator is identified as being affected by this
AD, before further flight after accomplishing the actions required
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, remove the accumulator in accordance
with paragraph 2.D. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.29-047, dated October 3, 2006, and do a
magnetic particle inspection of the cylinder for any defects in
accordance with APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-03, dated July
2006.
    (3) If any defect is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before next flight, replace the
accumulator with a serviceable unit in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-03,
dated July 2006.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
spare accumulator identified by APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-
03, dated July 2006, as a replacement part, unless it has been
inspected in accordance with APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-02,
dated March 2006; or APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-03, dated
July 2006 (see second Note in paragraph 1.D.(1) of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.29-047, dated
October 3, 2006, for further explanation).

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) Where the MCAI specifies to identify the installed
accumulator within 6 weeks after the effective date of the AD, we
have determined that the identification may be done within 30 months
after the effective date of this AD to coincide with the compliance
time for the magnetic particle inspection. In making this
determination, we considered the maximum interval of time allowable
for all affected airplanes to continue to operate without
compromising safety, fleet usage, and the availability of
replacement parts.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0076, dated March 21, 2007, and the service
information listed in Table 1 of this AD for related information.

                      Table 1.--Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Service Bulletin                           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-02............  March 2006.
APPH Service Bulletin AIR91666-29-03............  July 2006.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection       October 3, 2006.
 Service Bulletin ISB.29-047.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 9, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20462 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44014-44016]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0192]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Tall Ship Safety Zones; War of 1812 Bicentennial
Commemoration, Great Lakes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
each tall ship participating in the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes
2013 and the War of 1812 Bicentennial Commemoration. These safety zones
will ensure the safety of participating tall ships, spectator vessels,
and commercial traffic throughout the Great Lakes.

DATES: This rule will be enforced with actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on
July 3, 2013, until July 23, 2013. This rule is effective in the Code
of Federal Regulations from July 23, 2013, until September 10, 2013, at
11:59 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0192. To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in
this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2013-0192) in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Mr. Mark Bobal, Prevention Department,
Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland, OH telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 1, 2013, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal
Register (78 FR 25410), proposing to establish temporary safety zones
around each of the twenty-one tall ships participating in the Tall
Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2013 and the War of 1812 Bicentennial
Commemoration. The comment period for this NPRM concluded on May 31,
2013, and no comments were received. No public meeting was requested
and none was held.
    In another regulation, the Coast Guard will establish a special
local regulation for the tall ships celebration parade in Bay City,
Michigan, on July 11, 2013 (USCG-2013-0368).
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The final details of this event
were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time for
allow for a 30 day delayed effective date. Although the Coast Guard
provided for a 30 day comment period, waiting an additional 30 days for
the delayed effective period to run would be impractical and contrary
to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's
ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated
with a large gathering of sailboats in preparation for a race, which
are discussed further below.

B. Basis and Purpose

    As announced the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the U.S. Navy has
planned to hold a series of events along the Great Lakes during the
summer of 2013. Detailed information about remaining commemorations can
be found at http://www.visit1812.com.
    Also to commemorate the War of 1812 over the summer of 2013,
twenty-five tall ships will traverse all five Great Lakes as part of
the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2013. Between June 13 and
September 17, 2013, the tall ships will appear in twenty-two Great
Lakes ports and participate in five separate races. Millions of
spectators are expected to attend the tall ships events throughout the
Great Lakes. Information about the Tall Ships Challenge can be found
at: http://www.sailtraining.org/tallships/2013greatlakes/.
    The Coast Guard expects the following tall sailing ships to
participate in the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2013: the APPLEDORE
IV, CHALLENGE, COASTER, DENIS SULLIVAN, EMPIRE SANDY, FAIR JEANNE,
FRIENDS GOOD WILL, HALIE & MATTHEW, HINDU, KAJAMA, LA REVENANTE, LIANAS
RANSON, LYNX, MADELINE, MIST OF AVALON, NIAGARA, PATHFINDER,
PEACEMAKER, PLAYFAIR, PRIDE OF BALTIMORE II, RED WITCH, SORLANDET, ST.
LAWRENCE II, UNICORN, and the WINDY.
    The Ninth District Commander has determined that the War of 1812
Bicentennial Commemoration and the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes
2013 may pose serious dangers to the boating public. This determination
is based on the high concentration of recreational boaters expected to
be drawn to these events. The number of spectators is expected to be
particularly high in the port areas of Erie, PA; Cleveland, OH; Put-in-
Bay, OH; Bay City, MI; Chicago, IL; Green Bay, WI; and Duluth, MN
because of events planned for those ports. The Ninth District
Commander's determination is also based on the decreased
maneuverability of tall sailing ships and the commercial vessel traffic
known to frequent the aforementioned port areas.
    With these dangers in mind, the Ninth District Commander will
establish temporary safety zones pursuant to the authority granted in
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.).

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    To alleviate the dangers posed by the expected high concentration
of recreational boaters, commercial traffic operations, and the limited
maneuverability of tall sailing ships, the Ninth District Commander has
determined that it is necessary to establish a safety zone around each
tall ship participating in the War of 1812 Bicentennial Commemoration
and the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2013. Accordingly, the Ninth
District Commander will establish a safety zone around each of the tall
ships listed in the Basis and Purpose section above.
    These safety zones will be in effect and enforced from 12:01 a.m.
on July 3, 2013, until 11:59 p.m. on September 10, 2013. On September
2, 2013, each tall ship participating in the re-enactment of the Battle
of Lake Erie will be surrounded by a safety zone 500 yards in radius.
At all other times, between July 3, 2013, and September 10, each tall
ship will be surrounded by a safety zone 100 yards in radius. These
safety zones will be in effect and enforced around each tall ship
regardless of whether the tall ship is underway, at anchor, or moored.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no vessel or person may enter one
of these safety zones without the permission of the Ninth District
Commander, the cognizant Captain of the Port, or the on-scene
designated representative. Permission may be obtained to enter a safety
zone by contacting the on-scene designated representative on VHF
channel 16. Each vessel permitted to enter a safety zone must remain at
least 25 yards from any tall ships within the zone. Additionally, each
vessel permitted to enter one of the safety zones established by this
rule must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course and must proceed as directed by the Ninth District Commander,
the cognizant Captain of the Port, or the on-scene designated
representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues.
    Although these safety zones will be enforced throughout the Great
Lakes, each zone will be relatively small and only enforced in any one
particular geographic area for a minimal time. This is because the
safety zones will follow the tall ships through the Great Lakes and not
remain in any given area for more than a few days. Even when these
safety zones are being enforced in a given port area, vessels will have
the opportunity to transit through a zone by obtaining permission from
the Ninth District Commander, the cognizant Captain of the Port, or the
on-scene designated representative. For these reasons, restrictions on
vessel movement within any particular geographic area of the Great
Lakes are expected to be minimal, and therefore, the Coast Guard
considers this rulemaking not to be a significant regulatory action.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. 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.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in one of the safety zones established by this rule. This
safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section above.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.
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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this temporary rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This temporary rule is not an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
may disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This temporary 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), 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 rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction because it involves
the establishment of safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0192 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0192  Tall Ship Safety Zones; War of 1812 Bicentennial
Commemoration, Great Lakes.

    (a) Locations. The following are safety zones:
    (1) All navigable waters of the United States located in the Ninth
Coast Guard District within a 100 yard radius of the following tall
ships: APPLEDORE IV, CHALLENGE, DENIS SULLIVAN, EMPIRE SANDY, FAIR
JEANNE, FRIENDS GOOD WILL, HINDU, KAJAMA, LA REVENANTE, LYNX, MADELINE,
NIAGARA, PATHFINDER, PEACEMAKER, PLAYFAIR, PRIDE OF BALTIMORE II, RED
WITCH, SORLANDET, ST. LAWRENCE II, UNICORN, and the WINDY. These safety
zones will be enforced around each tall ship regardless of whether the
tall ship is underway, at anchor, or moored.
    (2) All navigable waters of the United States located in the Ninth
Coast Guard District within a 500 yard radius of each tall ship
participating in the re-enactment of the Battle of Lake Erie on
September 2, 2013.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced between 12:01 a.m. on July 3, 2013 until 11:59 p.m. on
September 10, 2013.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into a safety zone established by
this section is prohibited without the authority of the Ninth District
Commander, the cognizant Captain of the Port, or the on-scene
designated representative.
    (2) The ``designated representative'' of the Ninth District
Commander is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
who has been designated by the Ninth District Commander or the
cognizant Captain of the Port to act on his or her behalf.
    (3) Permission may be obtained to enter a safety zone established
herein by contacting the on-scene designated representative on VHF
channel 16.
    (4) Each vessel permitted to enter a safety zone established herein
must remain at least 25 yards from any tall ships within that zone.
    (5) Each vessel permitted to enter a safety zone established by
this section must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course and must proceed as directed by the Ninth District
Commander, the cognizant Captain of the Port, or the on-scene
designated representative.

    Dated: June 26, 2013.
M.N. Parks
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Ninth District Commander.
[FR Doc. 2013-17797 Filed 7-19-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 73618]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30670]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PR11-92-001]

Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on November 22, 2011, Enterprise Texas Pipeline
LLC (Enterprise Texas) filed a revised Statement of Operating
Conditions to comply with a Delegated letter order issued November 10,
2011.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing 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). 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. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 6, 2011.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30670 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P