[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 18585-18586]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28229; 812-13500]

Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund, et al.; Notice of
Application

March 31, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a)
under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit funds of
funds relying on rule 12d1-2 under the Act to invest in certain
financial instruments.

Applicants: Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund, Franklin
California Tax-Free Trust, Franklin Capital Growth Fund, Franklin
Custodian Funds, Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund, Franklin
Floating Rate Master Trust, Franklin Global Trust, Franklin Gold And
Precious Metals Fund, Franklin High Income Trust, Franklin Investors
Securities Trust, Franklin Managed Trust, Franklin Municipal Securities
Trust, Franklin Mutual Recovery Fund, Franklin Mutual Series Fund Inc.,
(``FMSF''), Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund, Franklin New York
Tax-Free Trust, Franklin Real Estate Securities Trust, Franklin
Strategic Mortgage Portfolio, Franklin Strategic Series, Franklin Tax-
Free Trust, Franklin Templeton Global Trust, Franklin Templeton
International Trust, Franklin Templeton Variable Insurance Products
Trust, Franklin Value Investors Trust, Institutional Fiduciary Trust,
Templeton China World Fund, Templeton Developing Markets Trust,
Templeton Funds, Templeton Global Investment Trust, Templeton Global
Opportunities Trust, Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Templeton
Growth Fund, Inc. (``TGF''), Templeton Income Trust, Templeton
Institutional Funds, Inc. (''TIFI'')(collectively, ``Funds''), Franklin
Advisers, Inc., Franklin Investment Advisory Services, LLC, Franklin
Advisory Services, LLC, Fiduciary International, Inc., Franklin
Templeton Investments Corp., Franklin Templeton Institutional, LLC,
Franklin Templeton Investment Management Limited, Franklin Mutual
Advisers, LLC, Templeton Investment Counsel, LLC, Templeton Global
Advisors Limited, Templeton Asset Management Ltd. (collectively,
``Managers'') and Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. (``FTDI'').

Filing Date: The application was filed on February 22, 2008.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on April 25, 2008 and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090; Applicants, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, California
94403-1906.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Lewis Reich, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6919, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1520 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Fund is organized as a Delaware statutory trust or a
Massachusetts business trust (except FMSF, TGF and TIFI, which are
Maryland corporations) and is registered under the Act as an open-end

management investment company. Each Manager is registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the
``Advisers Act''), is a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Franklin Resources, Inc., and serves as the investment manager for one
or more Funds and directly manages their assets. FTDI, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc, serves as principal underwriter
of the Funds' shares, and is registered as a broker-dealer under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). Applicants request
an exemption to the extent necessary to permit the Funds and their
existing and future series and any other existing or future registered
open-end management investment companies and their series that are in
the same group of investment companies, as defined in section
12(d)(1)(G) of the Act, as the Funds (included in the term ``Funds'')
that may invest in other Funds (``Underlying Funds'') in reliance on
rule 12d1-2 under the Act to also invest in other financial instruments
that may not be securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of
the Act (``Other Investments'') consistent with their investment
objectives, policies, strategies and limitations.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered
investment company (``acquiring company'') may acquire securities of
another investment company (``acquired company'') if such securities
represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting
stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if
such securities, together with the securities of other investment
companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total
assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered
open-end investment company may sell its securities to another
investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own
more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than
10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment
companies.
    2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides that section 12(d)(1)
will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an
acquiring company if: (i) The acquiring company and acquired company
are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the acquiring
company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of
the same group of investment companies, government securities, and
short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-
related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not
excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section
22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section
15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired
company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of
registered open-end management investment companies or registered unit
investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act.
    3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end
investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities
issued by another registered investment company in the same group of
investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (1)
Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same
group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (2) securities (other
than securities issued by an investment company); and (3) securities
issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on
rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2,
``securities'' means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the
Act.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and
provisions of the Act.
    5. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement would comply with
the provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the
Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments.
Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an
exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds to invest in Other
Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the Funds to invest in
Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any
of the concerns that the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed
to address.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Prior to approving any investment advisory agreement under
section 15 of the Act, the board of trustees of the appropriate Fund,
including a majority of the trustees who are not ``interested persons''
as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, will find that the advisory
fees, if any, charged under the agreement are based on services
provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services
provided pursuant to the advisory agreement of any Underlying Fund or
any other registered investment company that is not in the same group
of investment companies as the Fund, in which the Fund may invest. Such
findings, and the basis upon which the findings are made, will be
recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Fund.
    2. Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under
the Act, except for paragraph (a)(2), to the extent that it restricts
any Fund from investing in Other Investments as described in the
application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-6966 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10350]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3702]

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9632-9]
RIN 2060-AR35

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing additional revisions to certain portions of
the Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
published August 8, 2011). The final Transport Rule limits the
interstate transport of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that contribute harmful levels of
fine particle matter and ozone in downwind states. After the final rule
was published, it was brought to our attention that there are some
incorrect data assumptions that affect a few states' budgets or new
unit set-asides in the rule text. On October 14, 2011, EPA proposed
revisions to the final Transport Rule based on this new information and
sought comment on additional unit-level information addressing post-
combustion pollution control equipment and operational requirements
necessitating non-economic generation of a unit. EPA is finalizing the
earlier specifically proposed revisions in a separate action. EPA has
reviewed the information provided in comments addressing the topics
described above and proposes to determine that the unit-level
adjustments described in the preamble to the direct final are merited.

DATES: Written comments must be received by March 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491, by mail to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9252, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on
certain portions of the Transport Rule. We finalized a rule to address
discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the
proposed calculation of Transport Rule state budgets in Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas
and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas
(see 76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011). We are issuing a direct final
rule, in parallel with this proposal published elsewhere in this issue,
based on comments received on the Revisions Rule proposal, to amend the
August 8, 2011, final regulation (76 FR 48208) by correcting annual
NOX budgets in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, New York, Ohio,
and Texas; ozone-season NOX budgets in Arkansas, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas;
SO2 budgets in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York,
Ohio, and South Carolina; and new unit set-aside budgets in Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Missouri.
    We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to
the direct final rule. If we receive no significant adverse comment, on
the direct final rule, EPA will withdraw the relevant portions of the
rule and timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
Federal Register. We would address all relevant public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Dated: February 7, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-3702 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

BASF Corporation

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27709 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180.

	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

Dimethomorph
[(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]-mo
rpholine] in or on the raw agricultural commodity Leafy Vegetables at 16
parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains
data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408
(d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting
of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Based upon the results of metabolism studies
conducted on potato, grape, and lettuce, the nature of the residues in
Grapes is considered to be understood.  The results of the potato
metabolism study show only negligible residues in tubers, 0.01-0.02
parts per million (ppm) total radioactive residues (TRR).  This is in
contrast to the aerial portions of the plant, which were found to have
up to 23.5 ppm TRR, thus demonstrating that translocation of
dimethomorph downward within the plant was not significant.  Almost all
of the radioactive residue (97.8%) was extractable from the plant at
harvest.  In the aerial portion of the plant, approximately 70% of the
TRR was identified as dimethomorph.  No metabolites were identified that
require regulation.

The results of the grape metabolism study showed that the TRR in/on
grapes harvested 35 days following the last of four applications [0.8 lb
active ingredient per acre (ai/A) per application for four consecutive
weeks] for a total rate of 3.2 lb ai/A was 14.6 ppm.  Unmetabolized
dimethomorph accounted for 87.3% of the TRR (12.7 ppm).  No metabolites
were identified that require regulation.

The results of the lettuce metabolism study showed that the TRR in/on
lettuce leaves harvested 4 days following the last of 4 applications
[approximately 1.0 lb ai/A per application with a 9 to 11 day spray
interval], for a total rate of 4.1 lb ai/A, was 102 ppm.  Of this total
residue, 98.5% was extractable and unmetabolized dimethomorph accounted
for greater than 93% of the extractable TRR.  No metabolites were
identified that require regulation.

	2. Analytical method. A reliable method for the determination of
dimethomorph residues in Grapes exists; this method is the FDA
Multi-Residue Method, Protocol D, as published in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual I.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Supervised field trials were carried out to
determine the magnitude of the residue in/on grapes.  The number and
locations of field trials are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline
860.1500. Field trials were carried out using the maximum label rates,
the maximum number of applications, and the minimum pre-harvest interval
(PHI) for all the crops. Detected residues of Dimethomorph in all crops
support the proposed tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  i. Oral LD50 studies were conducted on dimethomorph
technical:

a. An acute oral toxicity study in the Sprague-Dawley rat for
dimethomorph technical with a LD50 of 4,300 milligrams/kilogram body
weight (mg/kg b.w.) for males and 3,500 mg/kg b.w. for females.  Based
upon EPA toxicity criteria, the acute oral toxicity category for
dimethomorph technical is Category III or slightly toxic.

b. An acute toxicity study in the CD-1 mouse for dimethomorph technical
with a LD50 of greater than 5000 mg/kg b.w. for males and 3699
mg/kg/b.w. for females. Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the
acute oral toxicity category for dimethomorph technical is Category III
or slightly toxic.

ii. Oral LD50 studies were conducted on the two isomers (E and Z) alone:

An acute oral toxicity study in the Wistar rat for the E-isomer with a
LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg b.w. for males and approximately 5,000
mg/kg b.w. for females.

   b. An acute oral toxicity study in the Wistar rat for the Z-isomer
with a LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg b.w. for both males and females.

An acute dermal toxicity study in the Wistar rat for dimethomorph
technical with a dermal LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg b.w. for both
males and females.  Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the
acute dermal toxicity category for dimethomorph is Category IV or
relatively non-toxic.

iv. A 4-hour inhalation study in Wistar rats for dimethomorph technical
with a LC50 greater than 4.2 mg/L for both males and females.  Based on
the EPA toxicity category criteria, the acute inhalation toxicity
category for dimethomorph technical is Category IV or relatively
non-toxic.

v. A skin irritation study was performed using New Zealand White
rabbits. Based on the EPA toxicity criteria, the skin irritation
toxicity category for dimethomorph technical in this study is Category
IV or non-to-slightly irritating.

vi. An eye irritation study using New Zealand White rabbits demonstrated
dimethomorph technical produced moderate conjunctival redness, slight to
moderate chemosis and slight discharge three hours after treatment.
Based on the EPA toxicity criteria, the eye toxicity category for
dimethomorph technical is Category III (slightly-to-moderately
irritating).

	2. Genotoxicty. i. Salmonella reverse gene mutation assays (2 studies)
were negative up to a limit dose of 5,000 (g/plate. Chinese hamster lung
V79 cells were negative for mutations at the HGPRT locus at up to toxic
doses in two studies.

Two Chinese hamster lung (V79 cells) structural chromosomal studies were
reportedly positive for chromosomal aberrations at the highest dose
tested (HDT) (160 (g/ml/-S9; 170 (g/ml/+S9).  However, dimethomorph
induced only a weak response in increasing chromosome aberrations in
this test system.  In addition, these results were not confirmed in two
micronucleus tests under in vivo conditions.

Structural Chromosomal Aberration studies were weakly positive in human
lymphocytic cultures, but only in S9 activated cultures treated at 422
(g/ml, the highest dose tested (HDT), which was strongly cytotoxic.  No
increase in chromosomal aberrations was observed in the absence of S9
activation at all doses.  Furthermore, the positive clastogenic response
observed under the in vitro conditions was not confirmed in two in vivo
micronucleus assays.

Micronucleus assay (2 studies) indicated that dimethomorph was negative
for inducing micronuclei in bone marrow cells of mice following i.p.
administration of doses up to 200 mg/kg or oral doses up to the limit
dose of 5,000 mg/kg.  Thus, dimethomorph was found to be negative in
these studies for causing cytogenic damage in vivo.

Dimethomorph was negative for inducing unscheduled DNA synthesis, in
cultured rat liver cells, at doses up to 250 (g/ml, a weakly cytotoxic
level.

Dimethomorph was negative for transformation in Syrian hamster embryo
cells treated, in the presence and absence of activation, up to
cytotoxic concentrations (265 (g/ml/+S9; 50 (g/ml/-S9).

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. i. A rat developmental
toxicity study with a Lowest-Observed-Effect Level (LOEL) for maternal
toxicity of 160 mg/kg/day and a No-Observed-Effect Level (NOEL) for
maternal toxicity of 60 mg/kg/day.  The NOEL for developmental toxicity
is 60 mg/kg/day.  Dimethomorph is not teratogenic in the Sprague-Dawley
rat.

ii. A rabbit development toxicity study with a LOEL for maternal
toxicity of 650 mg/kg/day and a NOEL for maternal toxicity of 300
mg/kg/day.  The NOEL for developmental toxicity is 650 mg/kg/day, the
highest dose tested.  Dimethomorph is not teratogenic in the New Zealand
white rabbit.

iii. A two-generation rat reproduction study with a LOEL for parental
systemic toxicity of 1000 ppm, or approximately 80 mg/kg/day, and a NOEL
for parental systemic toxicity of 300 ppm, or approximately 24
mg/kg/day.  The NOEL for fertility and reproductive function was 1000
ppm, the highest concentration tested, or approximately 80 mg/kg
b.w./day.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. i. A 90-day dietary study in Sprague-Dawley
rats with a NOEL of greater than or equal to 1000 ppm, the highest
concentration tested, or approximately 73 mg/kg/day for males and 82
mg/kg/day for females.

ii.  A 90-day dog dietary study with a NOEL of 450 ppm, or approximately
15 mg/kg/day, and a LOEL of 1350 ppm, or approximately 43 mg/kg/day.

	5. Chronic toxicity. i. A 2-year chronic toxicity study in
Sprague-Dawley rats with a NOEL of 200 ppm or approximately 9 mg/kg/day
for males and 12 mg/kg/day for females.  The LOEL for systemic toxicity
is 750 ppm, or approximately 36 mg/kg/day for males and 58 mg/kg/day for
females.

ii. A 1-year chronic toxicity study in dogs with a NOEL of 450 ppm, or
approximately 14.7 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 1350, or approximately 44.6
mg/kg/day.

iii. A 2-year oncogenicity study in Sprague-Dawley rats with a NOEL for
systemic toxicity of 200 ppm, or approximately 9 mg/kg/day for males and
11 mg/kg/day for females.  The LOEL for systemic toxicity was 750 ppm,
or approximately 34 mg/kg/day for males and 46 mg/kg/day for females.
There was no evidence of increased incidence of neoplastic lesions in
treated animals.  The NOEL for oncogenicity is 2000 ppm, the highest
concentration tested, or approximately 95 mg/kg/day for males and 132
mg/kg/day for females.

iv. A 2-year oncogenicity study in CD-1 mice with a NOEL for systemic
toxicity of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day.  There was no
evidence of increased incidence of neoplastic lesions in treated
animals.  The NOEL for oncogenicity is 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose
tested.

	6. Animal metabolism. Results from the livestock and rat metabolism
studies show that orally administered dimethomorph was rapidly excreted
by the animals.  The principal route of elimination is the feces.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. There were no metabolites identified in plant
or animal commodities which require regulation.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Collective organ weights and histopathological
findings from the two-generation reproduction study in rats, as well as
from the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in two or more animal
species, demonstrate no apparent estrogenic effects or effects on the
endocrine system.  There is no information available that suggests that
dimethomorph technical would be associated with endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. An assessment was conducted to evaluate the
potential risk due to chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population
and sub-populations to residues of dimethomorph.  This analysis included
all currently proposed tolerances listed in U.S. 40 CFR § 180.493 and
the proposed tolerances for grapes.

	i. Food. Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

An acute assessment was not needed since the U.S. EPA Toxicological
Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees had previously evaluated the
dimethomorph toxicity data, including developmental and maternal
toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies and determined there was
no toxicologic endpoints for acute dietary exposure and a quantitative
acute dietary exposure and risk assessment were not required.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

A Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted assuming
tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated factors for all
registered and proposed crops.  The EPA Food Commodity Ingredient
Database (FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.  Inadvertent residues in animal commodities
(i.e. meat, meat byproducts, milk, eggs) were not considered as a result
of grain forage since studies have shown dimethomorph does not
accumulate in animal tissues or milk and tolerance values for these
commodities are not required by the EPA.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the established
dimethomorph chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.11 mg/kg
b.w./day for all populations.  Results of the chronic dietary
assessments are listed in the table below.  The estimated chronic
dietary exposure from crops (both established and proposed tolerances)
was less than 25% of the cPAD for all subpopulations (Table 1).
Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues would
further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure.  The results in
the Table below demonstrate that there are no safety concerns for any
subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results
clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1.  Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment considering
crops with established and proposed tolerances  for Dimethomorph.

Population sub-group	Chronic Exposure (mg/kg bw/day)	%cPAD

US Population	0.008577	7.8

All infants (< 1 year)	0.005436	4.9

Children 1-2	0.0162585	14.8

Children 3-5	0.013308	12.1

Children 6-12	0.0084945	7.7

Youth 13-19	0.0064905	5.9

Adults 20-49	0.00818175	7.4

Adults 50+ yrs	0.00847875	7.7

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.007917	7.2

	ii. Drinking water. The chronic drinking water values used in this
analysis were the values proposed by EPA Federal Register Notice,
September 29, 2003, Volume 68, No. 188.  The chronic drinking water
value used was 28.3 ug/L.

Table 2.  Summary of Chronic Drinking Water Exposure Assessment
Considering the Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water Concentration
for Dimethomorph.

Population sub-group	Chronic Exposure (mg/kg bw/day)	%cPAD

US Population	0.000506	0.46

All infants (< 1 year)	0.001658	1.51

Children 1-2	0.000751	0.68

Children 3-5	0.000703	0.64

Children 6-12	0.000485	0.44

Youth 13-19	0.000366	0.33

Adults 20-49	0.000472	0.43

Adults 50+ yrs	0.000497	0.45

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.00047	0.43

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

Since the U.S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees has
evaluated the dimethomorph toxicity data and determined there was no
toxicologic endpoints for acute dietary exposure, the determination of
an acute aggregate exposure and risk evaluation was not required.

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of dimethomorph from food
and water (Table 3). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

Table 3.  Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk for
Dimethomorph.

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.11	0.008577	0.000506	0.009083	8.3

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.11	0.005436	0.001658	0.007094	6.4

Children 1-2 years	0.11	0.0162585	0.000751	0.0170095	15.5

Children 3-5 years	0.11	0.013308	0.000703	0.014011	12.7

Children 6 – 12 years	0.11	0.0084945	0.000485	0.0089795	8.2

Youth 13-19 years	0.11	0.0064905	0.000366	0.0068565	6.2

Females 13-49 years	0.11	0.00818175	0.000472	0.00865375	7.9

Adults 20-49 years	0.11	0.00847875	0.000497	0.00897575	8.2

Adults + 50	0.11	0.007917	0.00047	0.008387	7.6

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Dimethomorph is not registered for use on any
sites that would result in residential exposure.  Therefore, a
residential exposure and risk assessment was not conducted.

D. Cumulative Effects

	There is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by
dimethomorph would be cumulative with those of any other chemical.  The
fungicidal mode of action of dimethomorph is unique; dimethomorph
inhibits cell wall formation only in Oomycete fungi.  The result is
lysis of the cell wall that kills growing cells and inhibits spore
formation in mature hyphae.  This unique mode of action and limited pest
spectrum suggest that there is little or no potential for cumulative
toxic effects in mammals.  In addition, the toxicity studies submitted
to support this petition do not indicate that dimethomorph is a
particularly toxic compound.  No toxic end-points of potential concern
were identified.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population from the aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues.

	2. Infants and children. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants
or children from the aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex MRLs established for
dimethomorph for the commodities associated with this request;
consequently, a discussion of international harmonization is not
relevant.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:For e15 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211: Select Materials from May 5, 2010 Mtg. Mid-Level  Ethanol Blends Research Coordination Group Valerie Ughetta  to: Jim Caldwell 06/15/2010 05:21 PM Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded.

http://www.crcao.org/news/Mid%20Level%20Ethanol%20program/CRC%20Mid%20Level% 20Ethanol%20Program%20Summary%20Updated%204-29-2010.pdf

http://www.crcao.org/news/CRC_CM-136-09-1B_REVIEW_Apr2010_R8.pdf

http://www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2010/E-90/E-90_Final_Report_031210.pdf

http://www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2010/E-77-2/E-77- 2_Final_Report__March_2010.pdf

http://www.crcao.org/news/Mid%20Level%20Ethanol%20program/Appendix%20E% 20DiCicco%20May%205%202010%20AVFL_15%20Summary.pdf

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Valerie Ughetta

Director, Automotive Fuels

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

1401 Eye Street NW #900

Washington, D. C.  20005


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32369-32370]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13897]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-555-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Lebanon West II Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Lebanon West II Project, proposed by Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion) in the above-referenced docket. Dominion requests
authorization to replace 11 non-contiguous segments of its 26- and 30-
inch-diameter TL-400 Pipeline totaling about 10.2 miles, add a 10,915-
horsepower compressor unit to an existing compressor station, and
install other compressor station and gate assembly facilities. Dominion
also proposes to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) of these pipeline segments from 745 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) to 848 psig. The project would allow Dominion to transport an
additional 130,000 dekatherms per day from Dominion's MarkWest Liberty
Bluestone Interconnect in Butler County, Pennsylvania to Dominion's
Lebanon-Texas Gas Interconnect in Warren County, Ohio.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
activities associated with the project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff
concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners; newspapers and
libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In
addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site
(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of
the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before July 2,
2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference
the project docket number (CP14-555-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting
brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's
decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with
environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by
stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding
which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing
environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
555). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: June 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13897 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-17-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68589-68590]
[DOCID:fr27no06-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-63-000]

Egan Hub Storage, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

November 16, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 13, 2006, Egan Hub Storage, LLC (Egan
Hub) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A of the filing to
be effective December 14, 2006.
    Egan Hub states that the purpose of this filing is to modify the
Egan Hub Tariff to (i) Update the process for resolving balances
remaining in storage upon termination of a customer's contract, (ii)
reorganize the definitions contained in Section 2 of the General Terms
and Conditions (GT&C) into alphabetical order, and (iii) streamline the
process set forth in GT&C Section 20 for title transfer transactions.
    Egan Hub states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
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 14
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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19932 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17510-17513]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0208; Product Identifier 2019-NM-209-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-13-06, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400
and 747-400F series airplanes. AD 2015-13-06 requires repetitive
inspections of the longeron extension fittings for cracking, repetitive
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of any modified,
repaired, or replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking, and
applicable on-condition actions. Since the FAA issued AD 2015-13-06,
the FAA has determined that additional airplanes are affected by the
identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 2015-13-06 and include additional airplanes in the
applicability. For those additional airplanes, this proposed AD would
require only repetitive inspections of the longeron extension fittings
for cracking and repair if necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14,
2020.

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 https://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 NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone:
562-797-1717; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0208.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0208; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0208;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-209-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR 44835, July
28, 2015) (``AD 2015-13-06''), for certain The Boeing Company Model
747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes. AD 2015-13-06 requires
repetitive inspections of the longeron extension fittings for cracking,
repetitive HFEC inspections of any modified, repaired, or replaced
longeron extension fitting for cracking, and applicable on-condition
actions. AD 2015-13-06 resulted from reports of cracking in the
outboard flange of the longeron extension fittings, and the FAA's
determination that more work is necessary on airplanes on which a
permanent repair, longeron extension fitting replacement, or
modification was accomplished. The FAA issued AD 2015-13-06 to address
cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can become large and
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2015-13-06 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2015-13-06, Boeing reported that an
operator found a cracked longeron extension fitting on an airplane not
included in the applicability of AD 2015-13-06. Based on that report,
the FAA has determined that additional airplanes are likely affected by
the identified unsafe condition. The FAA has therefore added Model 747-
100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300,
747-400D, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes to the applicability of
this proposed AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3,
dated November 11, 2019. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive inspections of the longeron extension fittings for
cracking, repetitive HFEC inspections of any modified, repaired, or
replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking, and applicable on-
condition actions. On-condition actions include replacement, repair,
and modification. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA 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

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2015-13-06, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2015-13-06. Those requirements are referenced in the
service information identified previously, which, in turn, is
referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would
include additional airplanes in the applicability. This proposed AD
would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0208.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC inspection (retained actions  32 work-hours x $85              $0  $2,720 per           $111,520 per
 from AD 2015[dash]13[dash]06)      per hour = $2,720                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
 (41 airplanes).                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
HFEC inspection (new proposed      32 work-hours x $85              $0  $2,720 per           $70,720 per
 action) (26 airplanes).            per hour = $2,720                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                      Estimated Costs of On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement, Repair, Modification, or  Up to 908 work-hours x   Up to $99,950..........  Up to $177,130.
 Preventative Modification.             $85 per hour = Up to
                                        $77,180.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR 44835, July 28, 2015), and adding
the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2020-0208; Product Identifier
2019-NM-209-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 14, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR 44835,
July 28, 2015) (``AD 2015-13-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860,
Revision 3, dated November 11, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the outboard
flange of the longeron extension fittings and the FAA's
determination that additional airplanes are affected by the
identified unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can become large
and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated November 11,
2019, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated November 11, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated
November 11, 2019, uses the phrase ``the Revision 3 date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of
this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated
November 11, 2019, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, which was incorporated by
reference in AD 2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR 44835, July
28, 2015); or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 2, dated
July 12, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the repetitive
inspections, and inspection of temporary repair and corrective
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before September 1, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-
13-06) using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated
December 4, 2012, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-14-
05, Amendment 39-17510, (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013).

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) 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,

modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by
The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that
has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make
those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification
deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for the actions specified in
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of AD 2015-13-06 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated November 11, 2019, that are required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
    For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on March 22, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-06501 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 49504-49506]
[DOCID:fr13au10-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0097]

Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Goethals Bridge Replacement Project

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed replacement by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey of the 82-year old Goethals Bridge
across the Arthur Kill between Staten Island, NY, and Elizabeth, NJ.
The FEIS analyzes the potential for impact to the natural, human and
cultural environment of the proposed Goethals Bridge Replacement
Project.

DATES: The review period for the FEIS will close on September 13, 2010.
Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online
docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before September 13, 2010
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0097 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 how to
submit comments.
    The First Coast Guard District Bridge Office located at One South
Street, Battery Park Building, New York, NY 10004, will maintain a
printed copy of the FEIS available for inspection or copying between 9
a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions regarding this
notice, call or e-mail Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast
Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

    Submitting Comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2009-0097) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Notices'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0097'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click
``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column.
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 them 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.
    Viewing the Comments and the FEIS: To view the comments and the
FEIS, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments''
box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2009-0097'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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.
    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, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), a
transportation and development agency for the Port of New York and New
Jersey, has proposed replacement of the functionally and physically
obsolete Goethals Bridge that carries I-278 vehicular traffic between
Staten Island, NY, and Elizabeth, NJ. On May 28, 2009 (74 FR 25572),
the USCG made available the Draft EIS (DEIS). Two formal public
meetings were held, on July 8 and 9, 2009, to provide an opportunity
for submittal of oral comments to the USCG; written comments were
accepted by the USCG through July 28, 2009.
    Following the close of the public comment period in July 2009, the
Port Authority, the project sponsor, chose the New Alignment South as
its proposed alignment, and the USCG, the lead Federal agency for the
NEPA process, has identified the New Alignment South as the Preferred
Alternative for presentation and evaluation in the FEIS. The Preferred
Alternative comprises a new cable-stayed replacement bridge on an
alignment south of the existing Goethals Bridge, and removal of the
existing bridge following construction of the new bridge. The
replacement bridge would comprise the following elements: Six 12-foot-
wide travel lanes, three on each of two roadway decks (one roadway for
eastbound traffic and one roadway for westbound traffic); a 12-foot-
wide outer shoulder and a 5-foot-wide inner shoulder on each roadway; a
minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk/bikeway along the northern edge of the
westbound roadway; and a 65-foot-wide central area to be maintained
between the east- and westbound decks to accommodate the towers and
support cables as well as to allow for the provision of mass transit
service, should future conditions warrant inclusion of such service
during the service life of the replacement bridge. Navigational
clearance beneath the new bridge is proposed to be a minimum of 135
feet above mean high water (MHW) at the channel margins; similar to the
current minimum vertical clearance of the existing bridge. The main
piers are proposed to be constructed 900 feet apart, an increase from
the existing horizontal separation of 672 feet; thereby moving all
bridge structure-related hazards further away from the 500-foot wide
federally maintained navigation channel of the Arthur Kill. The
elevation of the two bridge towers is proposed to be 272 feet above
mean sea level (MSL), as compared to the 248 feet above MSL associated
with the existing bridge's truss superstructure.
    As a structure over navigable waters of the United States, any
replacement bridge requires a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Permit
pursuant to the General Bridge Act of 1946 (Title 33 U.S.C. 525-533).
Additionally, the bridge permit would be the major federal action in
this undertaking. The USCG, a component of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), by virtue of its regulatory authority over bridges
across navigable waters of the United States, is the lead Federal
agency for review of potential effects on the human environment,
including historic properties, of the Preferred Alternative, three
alternative alignments for construction and operation of a replacement
bridge, and the No Build alternative. The FEIS was prepared pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    This notice is issued under authority of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(c)); the General Bridge Act of 1946 (Title
33 U.S.C. 525-533); and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), Department
of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, and Coast Guard Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D.
    Given the Findings of Adverse Effect on three historic properties
(including the existing Goethals Bridge) and the ongoing development of
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) as per Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), this notice also serves as
an instrument for integration of the Section 106 Consultation into the
NEPA process, as required under 40 CFR 1505.25(a); as well as 36 CFR
800.2(a)(4), 800.3(b) and 800.8. An MOA for the Preferred Alternative
will be executed in consultation with the New York and New Jersey State
Historic Preservation Offices, and will be completed prior to the
anticipated record of decision (ROD) at the culmination of the NEPA
process.
    In accordance with the applicable regulations of the General
Conformity Rule (pursuant to the Clean Air Act; 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
as amended) and given the findings that the estimated annual emission
rates of two pollutants (i.e., CO and NOX) are predicted to
exceed the General Conformity applicability thresholds during the GBR
Project's construction period, this notice also serves as the
instrument to fulfill the 30-day public review requirements for the
General Conformity Determination by the USCG.
    Absent new information coming to its attention prior to the
conclusion of the 30-day period, the Coast Guard intends to complete
its ROD and pursue the preferred alternative at that time. The ROD will
identify the environmentally-preferred alternative for the proposed
action and be announced in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 3, 2010.
Hala Elgaaly,
Administrator, Bridge Program, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-19630 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, May 26, 2020 5:26 PM
To:
Brett J Tunno<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle S Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michalik, Sarah K<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke ICR - Questionnaire and Source Tests - USS Clairton

Hello - Thank you very much for the QA review of your source test data for USS-Clairton-PA. We have no further questions on the test data file.

However, in the Questionnaire, we noticed that for USS-Clairton-PA there were entries of  "POSTPONED" used for some of the answers in tab `Part II Q16b&c' in the review file that was re-submitted to us (see attached and below).

Can you please fill out the information in Q16-b and c and return to me in 30 days? If there is more of a story behind these entries, please let me know,

16.b. If major source of HAP, list each process unit that emits HAP.
16.b-pt.1. Identify each unit according to its permit/state ID number
16.b-pt.2. If no permit ID number exists, the facility ID number should be used.
16.b-pt.3. If no ID number is assigned at all, then provide a description of each unit and its location within the facility
16.c-pt.1. If major source of HAP, provide 2014 emission inventories for each process unit
16.c-pt.2. If major source of HAP, provide 2015 emission inventories for each process unit

Thankyou again for your cooperation with the ICR, especially the source testing and the extra effort needed to test the quench tower.
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals&Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC27711Tele:(919)541-5251Fax(919)541-3207
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."- anon.

<< USS-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019-USS Comments.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9199]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03317]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9013-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agencyy: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 02/03/2014 Through 02/07/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140035, Draft EIS, FHWA, NY, Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 4
Access Improvements, Comment Period Ends: 04/01/2014, Contact: Jonathan
McDade<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140036, Final EIS, BIA, NV, RES Americas Moapa Solar Energy
Center, Review Period Ends: 03/17/2014, Contact: Garry Cantley
<PHONE_NUMBER> Ext. 1256.
EIS No. 20140037, Final EIS, NPS, CA, Merced Wild and Scenic River
Final Comprehensive Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 03/17/2014,
Contact: Kathleen Morse<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140038, Draft Supplement, NMFS, 00, Fishery Management Plan
for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico,
Comment Period Ends: 03/31/2014, Contact: Jess Beck-Stimpert 727-551-
5755.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140012, Draft EIS, HHS, GA, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention Roybal Campus 2015-2025 Master Plan, Comment Period Ends:
04/10/2014, Contact: George Chandler<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to the FR
Notice Published 01/24/2014; Extending Comment Period from 03/10/2014
to 04/10/2014.

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-03317 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59383-59385]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23427]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0753; FRL-9178-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Safe Drinking Water Act Claims

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator's October 16, 2017, Directive Promoting Transparency and
Public Participation in Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements, EPA
is giving notice of a proposed consent decree to address a complaint
filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that EPA
failed to perform a mandatory duty under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). On January 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint pursuant
to the SDWA alleging failure of the Administrator to issue revisions to
EPA's consumer confidence report regulations by October 23, 2020. Under
the proposed Consent Decree, the EPA would agree to a deadline for
issuing the revisions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by November 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2021-0753, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand-deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Darman, Water Law Office,
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0753) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On January 19, 2021, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a
complaint pursuant to SDWA alleging failure of the Administrator to
issue revisions to the consumer confidence report regulations by
October 23, 2020. (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Michael Regan,
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, et
al., No. 21-cv-461 (S.D.N.Y.)) Pursuant to Section 1414(c)(4) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA promulgated consumer confidence
report regulations in 1998 to require ``each community water system to
mail to each customer of the system at least once annually a report on
the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system
(referred to in this paragraph as a ``consumer confidence report'').''
42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)(A). In 2018, the America's Water Infrastructure
Act (``the Act'') amended Section 1414(c)(4) to require EPA to issue
revisions to its consumer confidence report regulations ``[n]ot later
than 24 months after October 23, 2018,'' or October 23, 2020, 42 U.S.C.
300g-3(c)(4)(F)(i), to increase ``the readability, clarity, and
understandability of the information presented in consumer confidence
reports'' and to increase ``the accuracy of information presented, and
risk communication, in consumer confidence reports.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-
3(c)(4)(F)(i)(I)(aa)-(bb). The Act also provides that the CCR
regulations (1) require community water systems serving more than
10,000 persons to provide a consumer confidence report to each customer
``at least biannually'' and (2) allow electronic delivery of the
consumer confidence reports. 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)(F)(i)(II) and 300g-
3(c)(4)(F)(ii). The Act requires EPA to issue the revisions to the CCR
regulations ``in consultation with'' ``public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest groups, risk communication
experts, and the States, and other interested parties,'' 42 U.S.C.
300g-3(c)(4)(F) and 300g-3(c)(4)(A). EPA has not issued revisions to
the consumer confidence report regulations as described in 42 U.S.C.
300g-3(c)(4)(F), 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)(F)(i). Under the proposed
Consent Decree, the EPA would agree to a deadline for issuing the
revisions.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to
the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the
comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-
0753, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov 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. 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, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information

provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available
in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Steven M. Neugeboren,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-23427 Filed 10-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 14265]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04907]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88329; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rule 6800 Series, the Exchange's
Compliance Rule Regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail

March 5, 2020.
    On January 3, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's compliance rule regarding
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on January 23, 2020.\3\ The Commission has received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87990 (January 16,
2020), 85 FR 3963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is March 8, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act \5\
and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates April 22,
2020, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2020-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04907 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67769-67770]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to
Special Permits

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

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 5, 2019.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Nature of the
 Application No.     Applicant      Regulation(s)      special permits
                                       affected            thereof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Special Permits Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11827-M.........  Fujifilm         180.605(c)(1),   To modify the
                   Electronic       180.352(b)(3).   special permit to
                   Materials                         add IMDG language
                   U.S.A., Inc.                      to harmonize
                                                     international
                                                     transportation of
                                                     affected tanks.
                                                     (modes as
                                                     authorized by the
                                                     HMR).
11911-M.........  Transfer Flow,   177.834(h),      To modify the
                   Inc.             178.700(c)(1).   special permit to
                                                     authorize two new
                                                     fuel cap designs.
                                                     (mode 1).
14193-M.........  Honeywell        172.101(h).....  To modify the
                   International                     special permit to
                   Inc.                              authorize
                                                     additional portable
                                                     tanks with
                                                     identical
                                                     specifications to
                                                     those already
                                                     authorized. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3).
14313-M.........  Airgas USA LLC.  172.203(a),      To modify the
                                    172.301(c),      special permit to
                                    173.302a(b),     authorize the use
                                    180.205.         ultrasonic
                                                     examination (UE)
                                                     technology to
                                                     inspect CTC, CRC,
                                                     BTC, and TC
                                                     cylinders that have
                                                     a corresponding DOT
                                                     specification
                                                     cylinders as
                                                     described in the 49
                                                     CFR Sec.   171.12
                                                     (a)(4) text and
                                                     table for
                                                     requalification in
                                                     lieu of the
                                                     hydrostatic
                                                     pressure test and
                                                     internal visual
                                                     examination, and to
                                                     waive the required
                                                     marking of the
                                                     cylinders and
                                                     shipping papers
                                                     with the special
                                                     permit number.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                     5).
15873-M.........  Jiangxi Oxygen   178.274(b)(2)..  To modify the
                   Plant Co., Ltd.                   special permit to
                                                     authorize lower
                                                     pressure and
                                                     greater capacity of
                                                     the cylinders.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3).
15963-M.........  Jack Harter      172.101(j),      To modify the
                   Helicopters,     172.200,         special permit to
                   Inc.             172.204(c)(3),   authorize
                                    172.301(c),      additional hazmat
                                    173.27(b)(2),    and to clarify
                                    175.30(a)(1),    certain hazard
                                    175.75.          communications,
                                                     quantity
                                                     limitations and
                                                     loading and stowage
                                                     requirements.
                                                     (Rotorcraft
                                                     External Load
                                                     Operations).
16081-M.........  Cabela's LLC...  178.602(a).....  To modify the
                                                     special permit to
                                                     authorize
                                                     additional
                                                     hazardous
                                                     materials. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4).
16095-M.........  Clay and Bailey  172.203(a),      To modify the
                   Manufacturing    178.345-1,       special permit to
                   Company.         180.413.         authorize new
                                                     gaskets and testing
                                                     procedures for
                                                     manway production.
                                                     (mode 1).
20524-M.........  Wilhelm Schmidt  172.102(c)(4),   To modify the
                   Gmbh.            178.705(c)(2)(   special permit to
                                    ii).             authorize an
                                                     additional 6.1
                                                     hazmat. (modes 1,
                                                     2, 3).
20851-M.........  Call2Recycle,    172.200,         To modify the
                   Inc.             172.600,         special permit to
                                    172.700(a).      authorize an
                                                     additional outer
                                                     packaging and to
                                                     remove the 800 Wh
                                                     aggregate energy
                                                     content for a
                                                     single package.
                                                     (mode 1).
20904-M.........  Piston           172.101(j).....  To modify the
                   Automotive,                       special permit to
                   LLC.                              authorize batteries
                                                     that do not differ
                                                     from the approved
                                                     types in the permit
                                                     even if they have a
                                                     different part
                                                     number. (mode 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-26649 Filed 12-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-P