[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 59783]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-56-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On September 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL20-56-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2018), instituting an investigation into whether PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.'s Tariff may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory, or preferential. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 172 FERC
] 61,243 (2020).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL20-56-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL20-56-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2019), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    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://www.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 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 FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: September 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20977 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28716-28718]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

Docket No. USCG-2015-0046
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snake Creek; Islamorada, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Snake Creek Bridge across Snake Creek, at Islamorada, FL.
This final rule changes the drawbridge operating schedule for the Snake
Creek Bridge by requiring it to open once an hour between 7 a.m. and 6
p.m. The Bridge Owner, Florida Department of Transportation and Local
officials requested this action to assist in reducing vehicle traffic
backups caused by bridge openings.

DATES: This rule is effective June 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type ``USCG-
2015-0046'' in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Coast Guard Sector Key West Waterways Management
Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Snake Creek Bridge in Islamorada, Florida, has a vertical
clearance of 27 feet in the closed position. The normal operating
schedule as published in 33 CFR 117.331 is on demand except that from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour. This
schedule has been in effect since 2001.
    On March 27, 2015, we published a test deviation entitled
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Snake Creek; Islamorada, FL, in the
Federal Register (80 FR 16280). We received 63 comments on the test
deviation. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
    On September 18, 2015, we published a temporary interim rule and
request for comments entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Snake
Creek; Islamorada, FL, in the Federal Register (80 FR 56381). We
received 98 comments on the temporary interim rule. No public meeting
was requested, and none was held.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    Based on the following input, the Coast Guard initiated a test of a
new schedule for the Snake Creek Bridge on May 27, 2015:
    1. As reported by village and city councils, vehicle traffic caused
by frequent openings of the Snake Creek Bridge negatively impacted
Islamorada and surrounding communities. The temporary deviation
successfully tested a new bridge operation schedule that reduced
vehicle traffic caused by bridge openings.
    2. On January 8-10, 2013, the Florida Department of Transportation
conducted a traffic monitoring study 1400 feet south of the Snake Creek
Bridge on US-1. The study found peak traffic volumes occurring around
08:45 a.m. and between 12:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. These peak traffic
times were used to determine when the Snake Creek Bridge opening
schedule could be limited to reduce traffic.
    3. The Coast Guard's review found that the types of vessels
navigating Snake Creek include sport fishing vessels and catamaran
sailboats. Many of these vessels are able to safely transit under the
Bridge in the closed position.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    During the comment periods for the temporary deviation and the
temporary interim rule 161 comments were

submitted to the docket. Sixty-three of those comment were received in
response to the temporary deviation published on March 27, 2015 (80 FR
16280) and ninety-eight comments were received in response to the
temporary interim rule published on September 18, 2015 (80 FR 56381).
    One hundred and forty-four comments supported the amended operating
schedule applied during the test deviation and the interim rule which
allowed the Snake Creek Bridge to remain on a once an hour schedule
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. seven days a week and on demand at all other
times.
    Six comments received opposed the amended operating schedule or
suggested a different schedule that was more restrictive than necessary
to accommodate vehicular traffic and did not accommodate the reasonable
needs of maritime navigation.
    Two commenters requested that the start time be moved to 7 a.m. to
accommodate the school bus schedule. We agree that a schedule requiring
the Snake Creek Bridge to open once an hour starting at 7 a.m. would
assist with alleviating vehicular traffic and would not interfere with
the reasonable needs of maritime traffic. Therefore, this final rule
has been modified to begin the limited opening schedule at 7 a.m.
instead of 8 a.m.
    One comment suggested that these regulations were not needed after
Labor Day. A review of the traffic logs shows that vehicle traffic does
not diminish significantly after Labor Day.
    One comment suggested the bridge remain on a twice an hour schedule
except for weekends and Federal holidays. Based on a review of vehicle
traffic patterns, vehicle traffic is heavy throughout the daylight
hours and increases during weekends and Federal holidays. Reverting to
a 30 minute schedule on weekends and Federal Holidays would cause
excessive vehicle traffic which was the purpose of this change in
operating schedule. Therefore, this rule does not make an exception for
weekends and Federal Holidays.
    Two comments suggested placing morning and afternoon curfew hours
on this bridge. Placing morning and afternoon navigation closure
periods on this bridge would have an overly restrictive impact on
commercial waterway users and would not meet the reasonable needs of
maritime traffic.
    One comment suggested just three bridge openings a day. Allowing
this bridge to open just three times during daylight hours would also
have an overly restrictive impact on maritime traffic.
    Four comments in the docket file were empty and provided no input.
    These comments received during the interim rule comment period have
been used to adjust this schedule.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is made because vessels may
navigate the Snake Creek Bridge during the scheduled opening times or
use alternate passages including Channel Five above Long Key, Florida,
which is approximately 5.7 nautical miles southwest of Snake Creek
Bridge. Channel Five above Long Key, Florida is a fixed US-1 Bridge
that has a vertical clearance of 65 feet. Also, vessels with adequate
clearance may also pass under Snake Creek Bridge while it is in the
closed position.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated above and in V.A.,
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 (Public Law 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
section above.
    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 calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    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 E.O. 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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the operating regulations or procedures
for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.331 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.331  Snake Creek.

    The draw of the Snake Creek Bridge, at Islamorada, Florida, will
open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open
only on the hour.

    Dated: May 4, 2016.
S. A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-10922 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32974]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket No. FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1348]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On December 27, 2013, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination notice that contained an erroneous
table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in
lieu of the information published at 78 FR 78997. The table provided
here represents the proposed flood hazard determinations and
communities affected for Wayne County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where
applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community
are available for inspection at both the online location and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1348, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and
FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR
67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
are made final.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 78
FR 78997 in the December 27, 2013, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA
published a table titled Wayne County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas.
This table contained inaccurate information as to the community map
repository for the Town of Spring Grove featured in the table. In this
document, FEMA is publishing the accurate information. The correct
address for the Town of Spring Grove, which should be used in lieu of
the address listed in the previously published table, is: Office of
Planning and Zoning, Wayne County Annex Building, 401 East Main Street,
Richmond, IN 47374.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-13299 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43557-43560]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0642]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Float-in, Elizabeth
River; Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and
Chesapeake, VA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waters during the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Float-
in and bridge construction of span placement. This action is intended
to restrict vessel traffic movement to protect mariners from the
hazards associated with the float-in and span placement.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0642 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Hector Cintron, Waterways Management Division
Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 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

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0642), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2012-0642 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    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-2012-0642 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. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On September 5, 2012 through September 9, 2012 with inclement
weather dates of September 10, 2012 through September 14, 2012, PCL
Civil Construction, INC will facilitate removal of the existing bascule
spans from the Gilmerton Bridge, transport of the new center span from
the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River at the Campostella Bridge to
the Southern Branch at the Gilmerton Bridge in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and
Chesapeake, VA and the placement of the center span at the Gilmerton
Bridge in Chesapeake, VA. Due to the need to protect mariners and the
public transiting the Elizabeth River from hazards associated with the
span move and construction of span placement, the Coast Guard proposes
to establish a moving safety zone and an extended waterway closure at
the Glimerton Bridge. Access to this area would be restricted for
public safety purposes.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety
zone around the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span barge, restricting vessels
operating in the navigable waters on the Elizabeth River from the
Campostella Bridge located in the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River
to the Gilmerton Bridge beginning. This movement is scheduled to begin
at 6 a.m. on September 5, 2012, weather permitting. Because of the size
of the barge and the width of the waterway, vessels will not be able to
transit around the Barge, necessitating closure of the entire down
river waterway to the Glimerton Bridge. Transit is expected to take
approximately seven hours. This action is necessary to ensure the
safety of PCL Construction and vessels immediately prior to, during,
and following the transit of the span.
    In addition to the moving safety zone, we propose to establish
safety zone at the Gilmerton Bridge starting at 6 a.m. on September 5,
2012, weather permitting until work is completed on the placement of
the center span on the Gilmerton Bridge, estimated closure of the
waterway to all vessel traffic at the Gilmerton Bridge is until
September 9, 2012, with inclement weather dates of September 10, 2012
through September 14, 2012. During the removal of the existing
structures and installation of the new bridge span there is a danger of
falling debris. Additionally, PCL Construction will be using
construction equipment that will obstruct the waterway immediately
under and adjacent to the Glimerton Bridge. This safety zone is
proposed in the interest of public safety during span placement at the
Gilmerton Bridge and will be enforced from 6 a.m. on September 5, 2012,
weather permitted, until September 9, 2012, with inclement weather
dates of September 10, 2012 through September 14, 2012. Access to the
safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates. Except for
vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no
person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. Coast Guard
Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the safety
zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of
notice among the affected segments of the public. This will include
publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information
Broadcasts. Marine information and facsimile broadcasts may also be
made for these events, beginning 24 to 48 hours before the event.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed 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. The primary impact of
these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected
waterways during the moving safety zone accompanying the Glimerton
Bridge Span Barge and the safety zone at the Gilmerton Bridge beginning
at 6 a.m. on September 5, 2012 through September 9, 2012, with
inclement weather dates of September 10, 2012 through September 14,
2012. Although these regulations prevent traffic from transiting a
portion of the Elizabeth River during these events, that restriction is
limited in duration, affects only a limited area, and will be well
publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting
the affected area. This regulation is designed to ensure such transit
is conducted in a safe and orderly fashion.

2. Impact Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to operate or anchor in portions of the Elizabeth
River, in Virginia. The regulations would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
the restrictions are limited in duration, affect only limited areas,
and will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans
for transiting the affected areas.
    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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 LCDR Hector Cintron, Waterways
Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone
757-668-5581, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed

this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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 proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0642 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0642  Safety Zone; Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Float-in,
Elizabeth River; Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, Virginia.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone:
    Regulated Area 1--All waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth
River within 400 feet behind the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Barge
extending to the entrance of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River
and then continuing down river in the Southern Branch of Elizabeth
River to the Gilmerton Bridge in the vicinity of Norfolk, Portsmouth
and Chesapeake, VA. As the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Barge transits
through the waterway, the upriver portions of the waterway will reopen.
    Regulated Area 2--All waters of the Southern Branch of the
Elizabeth River within 400 feet of Gilmerton Bridge in the vicinity of
Chesapeake, VA.
    (b) Definition: For the purposes of this part, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations: (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band

radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period: This regulation will be enforced starting
at 6 a.m. on September 5, 2012 through September 9, 2012, with
inclement weather dates of September 10, 2012 through September 14,
2012.

    Dated: July 13, 2012.
John K. Little,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2012-18125 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19965]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0363]

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Marinette Logging and Heritage Fest

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Marinette
Logging and Heritage Festival Fireworks on the Menomonee River in
Marinette, WI from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 14, 2018. This action
is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters
immediately prior to, during, and after the fireworks display. During
the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (e)(50), Table 165.929, from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 14,
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email marine event coordinator, MSTC K.
Carpino, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan,
Milwaukee, WI; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Marinette
Logging and Heritage Festival Fireworks safety zone listed as item
(e)(50) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m.
on July 14, 2018 on all waters of the Menominee River, in the vicinity
of Stephenson Island, within the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site in position 45[deg]06.232' N,
087[deg]37.757' W (NAD 83). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In
addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard
plans to provide the maritime community with advance notification for
the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or
Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a
designated representative will inform the public through a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule. The Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan or a representative may be contacted via
Channel 16, VHF-FM., or via telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: April 19, 2018.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2018-09663 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 81817]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-23-010
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: RP15-23-009 Settlement
Compliance Filing Correction to be effective 12/1/2015
    Filed Date: 12/23/15
    Accession Number: 20151223-5166
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/30/15

    Docket Numbers: RP16-319-000
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Bantry Waiver
Amendment to be effective 1/1/2016
    Filed Date: 12/23/15
    Accession Number: 20151223-5154
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16

    Docket Numbers: RP16-320-000
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Seasonal Service
Jan 1-Mar 31 2016 to be effective 1/1/2016
    Filed Date: 12/23/15
    Accession Number: 20151223-5155
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16

    Docket Numbers: RP16-321-000
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Updated CHDP Zone
map and related provisions, and certain balancing provisions to be
effective 1/25/2016
    Filed Date: 12/24/15
    Accession Number: 20151224-5028
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/16

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 24, 2015.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2015-32921 Filed 12-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 26544]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-160-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on April 18, 2012 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in
Docket No. CP12-160-000, a Prior Notice request pursuant to Sections
157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act for authorization to construct and operate certain
natural gas transmission facilities in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Specifically, Columbia proposes to construct a 1.3 mile, 24-inch
diameter pipeline that would tie into Columbia's VM108 pipeline
northwest of the current terminus of Columbia's existing VM109
pipeline. The VM109 Extension Project will provide 15,000 Dth/d of
incremental capacity from Columbia's existing Boswell's Tavern and
Leach receipt points all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Fredric J. George, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Tranmission, LLC, P.O.
Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 22030, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: April 30, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10784 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1See http:// www. buffalocolor. com/.

Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 May 5, 2004 OFFICE OF WATER Mr. Sal Lotempio Bird Island Wastewater Treatment Plant 90 West Ferry Street Buffalo, NY 14213 Phone: ( 716) 883 1820, x 201 Fax: ( 716) 883 3789 Dear Mr. Lotempio:

The Clean Water Act ( CWA) requires that EPA periodically review existing effluent guidelines, pretreatment standards, and standards of performance for new sources and to revise them " if appropriate" or, in the case of new source performance standards, " as technology and alternatives change." As the project manager for the technology based effluent guidelines planning process ( see www. epa. gov/ guide/ plan. html), I am assembling the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005. The final Plan will describe EPA's effluent guidelines program, current development efforts, and the analyses that will help EPA to decide whether to revise or establish effluent guidelines and/ or pretreatment standards for particular industries.

As part of this planning process, we are reviewing the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, Synthetics, and Fibers ( OCPSF) effluent limitation guideline, codified in 40 CFR Part 414. We are using information reported to the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) to evaluate current discharges from OCPSF facilities. The 2000 TRI shows that a subset of OCPSF facilities ( those with a primary SIC Code 2865) discharged more than 850,000 pounds of aniline to POTWs. We are trying to obtain additional information on OCPSF discharges of aniline and other pollutants to POTWs to understand the impact, if any, of these discharges on POTWs.

In the 2000 TRI, the Buffalo Color Corporation facility1 reported discharging OCPSFgenerated wastewaters to your collection system. In particular, this facility ( TRI No. 14210BFFLC100LE) reported that it discharged 207,262 pounds of aniline to your POTW. As a result, we would like to obtain any readily available information on discharges from the Buffalo Color facility to your facility as well as any associated impacts. This information and your knowledge will help us better formulate policy options for the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Page 2 of 3 In particular, we request the following data and information ( if available):

A. General information about discharges from the Buffalo Color facility to your POTW.

1. This facility's pretreatment permit and any supporting documentation equivalent to a fact sheet that describes the development of the current permit limits; 2. Recent compliance monitoring data for this facility ( for all pollutants monitored and flow) for the past twelve months; and 3. Any particular issues or concerns presented by discharges from the facility, even if these concerns are not related to aniline ( e. g., any color problems).

B. Information about the aniline impact on your treatment plant:

1. A list of any other manufacturers of dyes or aniline known to discharge aniline to your POTW, and 2. Any interference problems experienced by your treatment plant from aniline.

C. Description of your treatment plant:

1. The annual average flow treated by your POTW in 2000, 2. The wastewater treatment scheme at your POTW, and 3. Any recent aniline discharge monitoring data ( last twelve months) from your POTW.

We would like to obtain this information within the next month as we are in the process of finalizing our current plan. Please send this information to me using one of the addresses listed below:

USPS Mailing Address: FedEx Delivery Address:

Carey A. Johnston, P. E. Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water U. S. EPA, Office of Water Mail Code: 4303T EPA West 6231G 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 1301 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20004 Page 3 of 3 Please contact me at ( 202) 566 1014 or johnston. carey@ epa. gov if you have any questions about this request or the effluent guidelines planning process in general. Your POTW is under no obligation to answer these questions. However, any information you supply will help us understand discharges from OCPSF to POTWs, which will lead to better formulated policy options for the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69685-69688]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1168; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-239-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -
300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the inner chords at
both left-side and right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. This
proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the frame inner
chord transition radius for cracks, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent
large cracks in the frames and adjacent structure that can adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 27,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of

this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:
(425) 917-6577; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1168;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-239-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 because of 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

    We have received reports of cracks in the inner chords at both
left-side and right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. The reports
indicate crack lengths that range from 0.10 inch up to 1.8 inches that
originate from the inner chord transition radius. In some cases, the
crack has intersected adjacent fastener holes. Analysis has determined
the cause of the cracks in the frame inner chords to be a stress
concentration at the transition radius. Cracks in the frame inner chord
transition radius can propagate and intersect fastener holes in the
frame chord. These cracks can propagate further into the frame
structure and adjacent structure and become large enough to adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated
July 27, 2011. This service information describes procedures for
repetitive detailed inspections or surface high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspections of the frame inner chord transition radius for
cracks at stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5, as applicable, left and
right buttock line 89, below water line 200; and related investigative
and corrective actions, if necessary.
    Related investigative actions include a detailed inspection for
filler(s) between the frame and stub-beam, and measuring for filler
thickness if necessary; and an open hole HFEC inspection for cracks in
the frame inner chord, failsafe chord, frame web, doubler (if
necessary), and stub-beam, if necessary.
    Corrective actions include contacting Boeing for repair
instructions; repairing; and oversizing the holes, and trimming out the
inner chord transition radius crack and installing a 1-to-2 hole repair
angle; if necessary.
    The compliance time for the initial inspection is either 11,000
total flight cycles or 2,400 flight cycles after the date on the
service bulletin (whichever occurs later); or 14,000 total flight
cycles or 3,000 flight cycles after the date on the service bulletin
(whichever occurs later); depending on airplane configuration. The
repetitive inspection interval ranges between 2,400 and 6,000 flight
cycles, depending on the inspection type.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''
    The post-repair inspections specified in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209,
Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, are not required by this proposed AD.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27,
2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to
repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing
those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 325 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed or HFEC inspection......  23 or 26 work-hours              $0  $1,955 or $2,210     Up to $718,250 per
                                    x $85 per hour =                     per inspection       inspection cycle.
                                    $1,955 or $2,210                     cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair...............................  24 work-hours x $85 per  $383 to $8,327 per       $2,423 to $10,367 per
                                        hour = $2,040.           frame.                   frame.
On-condition detailed and HFEC         7 work-hours x $85 per   $0.....................  $595.
 inspections and measurement.           hour = $595 per frame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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),
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-1168; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-239-AD.

 (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 27, 2011.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27,
2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the inner chords at
both left-side and right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. We
are issuing this AD to prevent large cracks in the frames and
adjacent structure that can adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and
Corrective Actions

    Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, at the times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011: Perform a
detailed inspection or a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking in the frame inner chord transition radius
at stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5, as applicable, left buttock
line and right buttock line 89, below water line 200; and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011; except as
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. If no
cracking is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at the
applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27,
2011.

    Note 1:  The post-repair inspections specified in Tables 2, 4,
6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, may be used
in support of compliance with Section 121.1109(c)(2) or
129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)).

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated
July 27, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action:
Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated
July 27, 2011, specifies a compliance time after the date on the
service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(i) No Reporting Required

    Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0209, Revision 1, dated
July 27, 2011, specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

 (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571,
Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

 (k) Related Information

    (l) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, ACO, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 21, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2011-28759 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71149]
[DOCID:fr08de06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-583-000]

Duke Energy Southaven, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 1, 2006.
    Duke Energy Southaven, L.L.C. (Duke Southaven) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff and
code of conduct. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for
sales of capacity, energy, and ancillary services at market-based
rates, and for the reassignment of transmission capacity. Duke
Southaven also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Duke Southaven requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Duke Southaven.
    On February 13, 2002, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates--Central, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
Duke Southaven should file a motion to intervene or protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2006).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is December 15, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Duke Southaven is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations
or liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Duke Southaven, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Duke Southaven's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

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

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20821 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                Hydrogen Sulfide Hazards in Marine Environments

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) is a toxic gas that in marine environments results from the decomposition of organic material, such as fish products, sewage, oily waste, and fire-fighting aqueous film forming foam (AFFF).

                    Fish Holds and Other Fish Storage Areas
                          Sewage and Gray Water Tanks

                           KNOW THE SIGNS AND RISKS
 Colorless and highly odorous, emitting a "rotten egg" smell

   Listen to your senses. If you think you smell H2S leave the space, alert others, have a competent person perform atmospheric testing, and ventilate the space.

 Can rapidly desensitize and paralyze your sense of smell

 Slightly heavier than air, often accumulating in low-lying areas

 Moderate concentrations can cause severe eye and respiratory irritation, including coughing and difficulty breathing; headache; dizziness; nausea; and vomiting

 High concentrations can cause sudden loss of consciousness or "knockdown," and result in death
                              Foam Storage Tanks
                           Oily Waste Storage Tanks
Placeholder Photo