[Federal Register: April 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17542]
[DOCID:fr09ap07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-372-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

April 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Colorado Interstate Gas Company
(CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
May 1, 2007:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 13C
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 13D
Third Revised Sheet No. 13E

    CIG states that copies of its filing have been served to all firm
customers, interruptible customers and affected 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>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6568 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA; Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 3 0 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Notification of Chemical Exports  TSCA Section 12( b)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 0795.11 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Chemicals; Hazardous Substances; Exports; Imports; Reporting Requirements 10. Abstract TSCA section 12( b) requires that any person who intends to export a chemical substance to foreign country a chemical substance or mixture for which submission of data is required under section 4 or 5( b), or for which a rule, action or order has been proposed or promulgated under section 5, 6, or 7, shall notify the EPA Administrator of such export or intent to export. The Administrator in turn will notify the government of the importing country of EPA's regulatory action with respect to the substance.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 500 b. Total annual responses 7,500 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 7,450 d. Current OMB inventory 10,400 e. Difference  2,950 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  2,950 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. G Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


1 The Agency has not conducted more recent data pulls from the 2003 Biennial Report. However we believe that the data from the 1999 report are likely representative of current hazardous waste generation patterns at non academic laboratories. Qualitative discussion of the impact of expanding the rule to include non academic laboratories The proposed alternative regulations were envisioned to apply to unwanted materials generated in laboratories at colleges and universities that choose to be subject to these proposed regulations. Hazardous wastes generated in laboratories located in non colleges and universities would not be eligible, but rather would continue to be subject to the existing hazardous waste regulations.

EPA believes that laboratories located in colleges and universities have unique waste generation patterns. However, in comments submitted in response to EPA's public meeting in 2003, several commenters indicated that laboratories in government and industry share similar processes, use of chemicals, and waste generation patterns. Specifically, commenters state that, like laboratories at colleges and universities, many industry, utility, and government laboratories generate relatively small amounts of a large variety of wastes.

If the alternative regulation was expanded to apply to non academic institutions, we would envision that the definition of laboratory may be " an area where relatively small quantities and a wide variety of chemicals and other substances are used on a non production basis for teaching or research purposes and are stored and used in containers that are easily manipulated by one person. An area where the same hazardous wastes are routinely generated, such as photo processing, is not a laboratory."

This definition would serve to limit the expanded scope, effectively excluding those facilities where fewer chemicals are used in larger volumes, and where the same types of hazardous wastes are generated routinely. However it would still expand the number of facilities eligible for the alternative regulations considerably. While the Agency does not have data on the number of facilities that may be included under this definition, we anticipate that several thousand additional facilities would potentially be eligible for this alternative approach. A summary of the number of establishments in key industries which are known to generate laboratory wastes is presented in Table 1. These facilities were identified because they generated hazardous waste from source code A94 ( laboratory wastes) as reported in the 1999 Biennial Report. 1 The number of facilities identified is likely an underestimate of the actual number of facilities generating laboratory waste, since facilities reporting hazardous waste generation data in BRS do not consistently use source codes. However we believe the estimates represent a reasonable base number of facilities which would be eligible under an expanded definition of laboratories. 2 Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other Impacts For the Proposed Revised Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K  Academic Laboratories, December 3, 2005. Section 3.4.1, Table 3 8. Table 1. Number of Establishments and Laboratory Hazardous Waste Generation by Key Non Academic Industries With Laboratories Industry Number of Establishments Hazardous Waste Quantities ( tons) Average Lab Haz. Waste per Facility Semiconductors and Related Devices 49 239,494 4,888 Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC 231 80,147 347 Pharmaceutical Preparations 224 5,161 23 Noncommercial Research Organizations 30 4,034 134 Testing Laboratories 121 4,242 35 Commercial, Physical and Biological Research 108 2,799 26 All Others 2,446 275,886 113 Total 3,209 611,763 191 Data Source: Biennial Reporting System, 1999 The range of averages of hazardous waste for each lab runs from 4,888 tons for semi conductors and related devices to 26 tons for commercial physical and biological research. This waste quantity is significantly higher than the colleges and universities included under the proposed rule, which generated an average of 1.9 to 3.3 tons. 2 This higher average laboratory hazardous waste generation per facility is one reason the Agency chose to restrict the proposed rule to only college and university laboratories.

Without more in depth information about these facilities, the Agency is unable to estimate the potential operating costs associated with expanding the proposed rule to non academic laboratories. Additional information needed would include current hazardous waste determination practices ( e. g., who makes the determination), number of laboratories per facility, availability of a central accumulation area, and other factors. However we can estimate the increased burden associated expanding the proposed rule.

For purposes of illustrating potential impacts, we assume that there may be 3,200 facilities eligible 3Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other Impacts For the Proposed Revised Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K  Academic Laboratories, December 3, 2005. Section 5.5. and wishing to be regulated under the proposed regulatory option. Additional costs to states and other governmental agencies for tracking applications, incremental costs for inspections and additional costs for training inspectors are summarized in Table 2, using the assumptions and unitcost estimates presented in the Economic Assessment. 3 Overall, initial costs to state governments are estimated at nearly $ 100,000. Subsequent annual costs are estimated to range from approximately $ 5,500 to nearly $ 24,000. Since the rule is optional and there is a likelihood of an increased state burden if the scope of the rule were expanded many or all states except Iowa may choose not to adopt the rule. We assume only laboratories that will experience a cost savings will chose to be subject to this rule. Therefore we assume there is no incremental cost impact to laboratories. Table 2. Estimated Incremental Burden to States Associated With Expanding the Proposed Rule to Include Non academic Laboratories Cost Item Cost Per Unit Units Frequency Number of Items* Proposed Regulatory Option Alternative Option A ( more stringent) Alternative Option B ( less stringent)

Review of Notifications 1/ $ 29 Review of one notification Initial/ one time 3,200 $ 92,800 $ 92,800 NR Initial Inspector Training Costs 2/ $ 76 Cost per training one inspector Initial/ one time 60 $ 4,560 $ 4,560 $ 4,560 Annual Inspector Training Costs 3/ $ 76 Cost Per Training Replacement Inspectors Annual 12 $ 912 $ 912 $ 912 LMP Review 4/ $ 57 Increased Inspection Costs Annual 320 NR $ 18,240 NR NR Not required 1/ Costs are for initial notification and will be incurred at adoption; estimate represents a one time only cost.

2/ Cost estimates are for the initial training of inspectors; estimate represents a one time only cost.

3/ Annual inspector training costs, incurred as new inspectors are hired.

4/ Incremental inspection costs associated with making the LMP an enforceable document.

* Number of Items refers to the number of type of cost item listed under the first column. For example for review of notifications we assume there are 3,200 notifications.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

DATE:

	February 12, 2013

SUBJECT:

	Technical Support Document for the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
Reasonably Available Control Technology Under the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard

 FROM:

	Melissa Linden, Life Scientist

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30)

TO:

REVIEWED BY:	SIP Docket File

              /s/

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30)

I.	Affected Regulation

The revision to the Allegheny County section of the Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted on May 5, 2009, applies to the
demonstration that the area meets the requirements of reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) set forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

II.	 Background

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between
volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon
monoxide (CO) in the presence of sunlight.  In order to reduce ozone
concentrations in the ambient air, the CAA requires all nonattainment
areas to apply control on VOC/NOx emission sources to achieve emission
reductions.  Among effective control measures, RACT controls are a major
group for reducing VOC and NOx emissions from stationary sources.

Since the 1970's EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.  See,72 FR 20586 at
20610, April 25, 2007.  Section 182 of the CAA sets forth two separate
RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas.  The first requirement,
contained in section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred to as RACT
fix-up, requires the correction of RACT rules for which the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified deficiencies before the
CAA was amended in 1990. The second requirement, set forth in section
182(b)(2) of the CAA, requires that moderate (or worse) ozone
nonattainment areas, as well as marginal and attainment areas in ozone
transport regions (OTR) established pursuant to section 184 of the CAA,
implement RACT controls on all major VOC and NOx emission sources and on
all sources and source categories covered by a control technique
guideline (CTG) issued by EPA.

The first RACT requirement for ozone nonattainment areas, contained in
section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, required Allegheny County to submit a
SIP revision correcting RACT rules prior to the CAA amendment in 1990.
The second RACT requirement for ozone nonattainment areas, set forth in
section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, requires the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
to implement RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by a CTG
document issued between the date of the 1990 Amendments and the date of
attainment, for VOC sources covered by any CTG issued before the 1990
Amendments, and for all other major stationary sources of VOCs.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated the new 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone.  Under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Allegheny County was designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and is required to submit to
EPA a SIP revision that demonstrates how the County meets the RACT
requirements under the 8-hour ozone standard.

EPA requires under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that states meet the CAA RACT
requirements, either through a certification that previously adopted
RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment purposes,
or through the adoption of new or more stringent regulations that
represent RACT control levels.  See, Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule To
Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source
Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in
Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 2 Rule) 70 FR 71612, 71655, November 29,
2005.  Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the CAA require that all SIPs
satisfy the NOx and VOCs RACT requirements that apply in areas that have
not attained the NAAQS for ozone.  See, 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), 42 U.S.C.
7511a(b)(2), and 42 U.S.C. 7511a(f).  EPA has determined that States
that have RACT provisions approved in their SIPs for 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas have several options for fulfilling the RACT
requirements for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  If a State meets certain
conditions, it may certify that previously adopted 1-hour ozone RACT
controls in the SIP continue to represent RACT control levels for
purposes of fulfilling 8-hour ozone RACT requirements.  Alternatively, a
State may adopt new or more stringent regulations that represent RACT
control levels, either in lieu of or in conjunction with a
certification.

As set forth in the preamble to the Phase 2 Rule, a certification must
be accompanied by appropriate supporting information such as
consideration of information received during the public comment period
and consideration of new data (70 FR 71655).  This information may
supplement existing RACT guidance documents that were developed for the
1-hour standard, such that the State’s SIP accurately reflects RACT
for the 8-hour ozone standard based on the current availability of
technically and economically feasible controls.  Adoption of new RACT
regulations will occur when states have new stationary sources not
covered by existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical
information indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not
represent a newly available RACT control level.  Another 8-hour ozone
NAAQS requirement for RACT is to submit a negative declaration if there
are no CTG major sources of VOC and NOx emissions in lieu of or in
addition to a certification.

VOC CTG RACT Controls

Allegheny County’s Regulations codified at Article XXI, contain the
County’s CTG VOC RACT controls that were implemented and approved in
the Allegheny County SIP under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  Table 1 lists
Allegheny County’s VOC RACT controls for which Allegheny County has
provided the required evaluation and is certifying as meeting the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS RACT requirements.  Revisions to the CTG VOC RACT
regulations were made after the May 6, 2009 submittal and were approved
by EPA on December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81480) and supersede the current
action being taken by EPA.

Table 1.  Allegheny County’s CTG VOC RACT Controls

Article XXI

Section	Existing Stationary Sources – 40 CFR 52.2020 (c)

	CTG for RACT Basis	State Effective Date	Federal Register Date for SIP
Approval	Citation

2105.10 VOC Sources Surface Coating Processes	Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surfact
Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty
Trucks

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
10/20/1995

07/10/03	11/14/2002

06/24/2005	67 FR 68935

70 FR 36511

2105.11 VOC Sources Graphic Arts Systems	Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts
– Rotogravure and Flexography	10/20/1995	11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.12

VOC Sources VOC Storage Tanks	Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks	10/20/1995
11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.13

Gasoline Loading Facilities 	Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Bulk Gasoline Plants

Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems – Gasoline Service
Stations	10/20/1995	11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.15 Degreasing Operations 	Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Solvent Metal Cleaning	10/20/1995	11/14/2002 	67 FR 68935

2105.16 Cutback Asphalt Paving	Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
from Use of Cutback Asphalt	10/20/1995	11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.17 Ethylene Production Facilities

10/20/1995	11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.19 Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing –
Fugitive Emissions	Control of Volatile Organic Compound Fugitive
Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin
Manufacturing Equipment	10/20/1995	11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.70 Petroleum Refineries

10/20/1995	11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.71 Pharmaceutical Products	Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products	10/20/1995
11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.72 Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires	Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires	10/20/1995
11/14/2002	67 FR 68935

2105.74 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework	Aerospace	07/10/2003
06/24/2005	70 FR 36511

2105.75 Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing	ACT: Automobile Body
refinishing	07/10/2003	06/24/2005	70 FR 36511

2105.76 Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations	Wood Furniture
07/10/2003	06/24/2005	70 FR 36511

Although alternative control technology (ACTs) are not regulatory
documents and have no legal effect on state regulations, EPA requires
that states verify that ACTs have been considered in the RACT program
development process.  Therefore, Allegheny County included ACTs in their
review of applicable RACT requirements in this submittal.

	Allegheny County also submitted a negative declaration certifying that
the following VOC CTG major sources do not exist in the county and
therefore there is no need to adopt CTGs for these sources.  Table 2
lists VOC CTG major sources in Allegheny County’s negative
declaration.  A separate submittal was made by Allegheny County
submitting the negative declaration for Volatile Organic Emissions from
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners on January 8, 2009.

Table 2.  VOC CTG sources for which no Applicable Facilities Exist in
Allegheny County

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry
Cleaners

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume II: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural
Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants

Processing Plants

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes
and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry

Shipbuilding/Repair

B.  Source-Specific RACT Controls

Table 3.  Source-Specific RACT Controls

Facility Name	State Effective Date	Pollutant	Federal Register Date
Citation

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation	12/19/1996	NOx/VOC	10/18/2001	66 FR 52857

Ashland Specialty Chemical Co.	12/30/1996	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52506

Bay Valley Foods	06/09/2005	NOx	05/11/2006	71 FR 27394

Bellefield Boiler Plant	12/19/1996	NOx	10/12/2001	66 FR 52044

Eastman Chemical Resins, Inc.	11/01/1999	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52506

GE Lighting LLC	12/19/1996	NOx	10/16/2001	66 FR 52527

Guardian Industries Corp.	08/27/1996	NOx	10/16/2001	66 FR 52527

Koppers Industries, Inc.	08/27/1996	VOC	10/17/2001	66 FR 52700

Neville Chemical Co.	12/13/1996	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52506

NRG Energy Center	06/09/2005	NOx	05/11/2006	71 FR 27394

Orion Power Brunot Island	08/27/1996	NOx/VOC	10/15/2001	66 FR 52327

Orion Power Cheswick	03/08/1996	NOx	10/18/2001	66 FR 52867

PACT – Pennsylvania Allegheny County Thermal	03/04/1996	NOx	10/12/2001
66 FR 52044

Port Glenshaw Glass, LLC	03/10/2000	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52527

PPG Industries, Inc Springdale	12/19/1996	VOC	10/12/2001	66 FR 52050

Pressure Chemical Company	06/11/1997	VOC	10/17/2001 	66 FR 52700

Shenango Inc.	12/30/1996	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52511

US Steel Clairton	12/30/1996	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52511

US Steel Edgar Thomas	12/30/1996	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52511

US Steel Irvin	12/30/1996	NOx/VOC	10/16/2001	66 FR 52511

The sources in Table 3, required a re-evaluation of the 1-hour RACT
determinations for 8-hour RACT and EPA’s summary of those is provided
below.

Allegheny Ludlum

	The facility is a major source for VOC and NOx. The only change at the
facility affecting VOC and NOx emissions was the replacement of four
electric arc furnaces by two larger capacity electric arc furnaces. The
1-hour RACT determination was good engineering and air pollution control
practices for electric arc furnaces and that remains the determination
for 8-hour RACT because the selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) have not been applied to control NOx
emission from an electric arc furnace before. For VOC emission the
catalytic oxidizer is technically infeasible and the thermal oxidizer is
economically infeasible. For details of this evaluation please see
Allegheny County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

Ashland Inc.

	The facility shut down the Maleic Anhydride Plant in 2006 and with the
facility closure the potential-to-emit (PTE) for VOCs is below the
threshold for a major source.  Ashland also agreed in the Title V
process to limit the fuel use in two boilers as well as a facility-wide
limit of 98 tons per year (tpy) of NOx, which makes it a synthetic minor
source.

Bay Valley Foods

	This facility is a NOx RACT source.  Allegheny County evaluated flue
gas recirculation (FGR), combustion optimization which is already being
done on all boilers, ultra-low nitrogen fuels, SCR, SNCR, and fuel
switching for NOx controls.  It was determined that all of these control
options were either economically or technically infeasible for this
facility.  For details of this evaluation please see Allegheny
County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

Bellefield Boiler Plant

	This facility is a major source for NOx.  The plant has 6 boilers which
fire coal, natural gas, No.2 fuel oil or combinations of fuels.
Allegheny County evaluated SNCR, SCR, wet scrubbing, gas-fired
combustors/Low NOx Burners/FGR, fuel switching and natural gas only.  It
was determined that all of control options were either economically or
technically infeasible for this facility.  For details of this
evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental information
dated March 9, 2012.

Eastman Chemical Resins, Inc.

	This facility is a major source for VOC.  It was determined for the
polymerization processes, resin hydrogenation process, five finishing
processes and an emulsion process that there were no additional controls
that were not cost prohibitive.  For storage tanks in the facility about
40 are subject to section 2105.12 Article XXI, “VOC Storage Tanks”
and the rest have been determined to have no additional control options
that were reasonable for RACT.  It would be cost prohibitive to install
covers and a refrigerated condenser system on the wastewater treatment
plant so RACT is still proper operation and maintenance.  For details of
this evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental information
dated March 9, 2012.

General Electric (GE) Lighting

	This facility is a major source for NOx.  RACT for the glass melting
furnaces are in Table 4 below.  RACT for the miscellaneous combustion
units shall be installation, maintenance, and operation of the sources
in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications at all times.  For
details of this evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental
information dated March 9, 2012.

Table 4.  Glass Melting Furnaces at GE with Controls being Utilized.

NOx Emission Unit 	Baseline Level of NOx Control

F2-8

Simplex Furnace 	Oxy-firing

Low Excess Air

Electric Boost

Use of Cullet in Batches

Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

F3-4

Gas/Electric Furnace 	Oxy-firing

Low Excess Air

Electric Boost

Use of Cullet in Batches

Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

F4-3

Frit Furnace 	Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

F6-3

Germicidal Furnace 	Low Excess Air

Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

F7-4

Special Furnace 	Oxy-firing

Low Excess Air

Electric Boost

Use of Cullet in Batches

Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

F8-6

180 Furnace 	Low Excess Air

Oxygen Enrichment

Use of Cullet in Batches

Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

Guardian Industries Corporation

	This facility is a major source of NOx and the facility is already
utilizing all technically feasible control options and techniques for
the melting furnace as listed in the Table 5 below.  For details of this
evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental information
dated March 9, 2012.

Table 5.  Glass Melting Furnace at Guardian Industries and Controls
being Utilized.

NOx Emission Unit 	Baseline Level of NOx Control

S001: Melting Furnace 	Oxy-firing

Low-NOx burners

Minimize excess air

Electric boost

Maximize cullet in batches

Minimize nitrates in batches

Minimize furnace temperatures

Adherence to Manufacturer’s Specifications

Koppers, Inc.

	This facility is a major source for VOC.  Allegheny County evaluated
thermal oxidation, catalytic oxidation, flaring, carbon adsorption,
condensation, scrubbing, and submerged fill as control options and
determined that no control options were both technically and
economically feasible.  RACT for 8-hour ozone NAAQS is to extend the
leak detection and repair program to equipment that was not subject
under 1-hour ozone RACT and for the product loading to be done in a
submerged fill pipe.  For details of this evaluation please see
Allegheny County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

Neville Chemical Company

	This facility is a major source of NOx and VOC.  For NOx the facility
boilers are subject to presumptive RACT which is in Article XXI, section
2105.06(d)(2).  For VOC Allegheny County evaluated thermal oxidation,
concentrator/oxidation, catalytic oxidation, flaring, carbon adsorption,
condensation and absorption as technically feasible options.  None of
the VOC controls were determined to be economically feasible, so RACT
will be the same as 1-hour requirements.  For details of this evaluation
please see Allegheny County’s supplemental information dated March 9,
2012.

NRG Energy Center

	This facility is a major source of NOx and four boilers and three
generators.  The 8-hour RACT will keep the same limits for boilers 1-3
and add boiler 4 and the emergency generators because they were
installed after 1-hour RACT determinations were made.  For details of
this evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental information
dated March 9, 2012.

Orion Power MidWest, L.P.

	This facility is a major source of NOx and VOC.  Allegheny County has
determined that no NOx controls are technically or economically feasible
for the three turbines using the ACT document for combustion turbines.
Allegheny County has also determined that no add-on VOC controls would
be cost effective for the turbines due to the low maximum potential of
VOC emissions for those turbines.  For details of this evaluation please
see Allegheny County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

Cheswick Power Station

	This facility is a major source of NOx.  Since the 1-hour RACT
determination was made the facility’s emissions are regulated during
the ozone season by Pennsylvania Nitrogen Oxide Allowance Program in
permit # 02-0054 and SCR was installed to run during the ozone season
for the main boiler.  The auxiliary boiler will have a 12-month rolling
limit on British thermal units (Btu) input of 438,000 MMBtu.  For
details of this evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental
information dated March 9, 2012.

Pittsburgh Allegheny County Thermal, Ltd.

	This facility is a major source for NOx.  The facility has four boilers
that burn natural gas as their primary fuel source and can burn No. 2
fuel oil in emergency situations.  It was determined that no additional
NOx controls were both technically and economically feasible.  For
details of this evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental
information dated March 9, 2012.

Glenshaw Glass

	This facility was damaged in a flood and shutdown on November 24, 2004.
 In the process of restarting the facility, the furnace that was
repaired ceased operating again to apply for emission reduction credits,
thus triggering it to be subject as a new source and completing best
available control technology (BACT) review.  The operating furnace has
installed BACT and the remaining furnaces are currently deactivated and
will require BACT if they are reactivated.  For details of this
evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental information
dated March 9, 2012.

PPG Industries, Inc.

	The facility is a major source of VOC.  The 1-hour RACT determination
included conditions for the resin plant, which is no longer in
operation.  The emissions from the Paint Plant and Development Center
are currently vented to the thermal oxidizer, which has a demonstrated
destruction efficiency of 94.5%.  For details of this evaluation please
see Allegheny County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

Pressure Chemical Company

	This facility is a major source of VOC.  Allegheny County evaluated the
use of regenerative thermal oxidizer, thermal incinerator, and catalytic
incinerator as VOC control technologies and determined that although
they were technically feasible they are not economically feasible.  For
details of this evaluation please see Allegheny County’s supplemental
information dated March 9, 2012.

Shenango Incorporated

	This facility is a major source of VOC and NOx.  The facility replaced
four boilers with more efficient Low NOx Burner boilers since the 1-hour
RACT determination.  The facility went through BACT determination of
using Low NOx Burner and FGR on the four new boilers with heat input
capacity limit of 265.2 MMBtu/hour.  Nitrogen blanketing system has been
installed on the majority of VOC sources associated with the by-product
plant.  For all other sources proper combustion technology/design,
operation and maintenance of all other emission units according to good
engineering and air pollution control practices at all times is
considered RACT for NOx and VOC.  For details of this evaluation please
see Allegheny County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

U.S. Steel Clairton Works

	This facility is a major source of VOC and NOx.  It was determined that
no additional VOC or NOx control equipment was technically and
economically feasible for this facility beyond the 1-hour RACT
determination.  For details of this evaluation please see Allegheny
County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

U.S. Steel Edgar Thomson Works

	This facility is a major source of VOC and NOx.  It was determined that
no additional VOC or NOx control equipment was technically and
economically feasible for this facility beyond the 1-hour RACT
determination.  For details of this evaluation please see Allegheny
County’s supplemental information dated March 9, 2012.

III.       Evaluation

Allegheny County’s SIP revision contains the requirements of RACT set
forth by the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Allegheny County’s SIP
revision satisfies the 8-hour RACT requirements through (1)
certifications that previously adopted RACT controls in Allegheny
County’s SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
are based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls, and continues to represent RACT for the 8-hour
implementation purposes; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that
no facilities exist in the area for the applicable CTG categories; and
(3) a new RACT determination for a single source.  Therefore, approval
of Allegheny County’s 8-hour RACT SIP is recommended.

IV.       Conclusion

This SIP revision request satisfies all requirements for an acceptable
SIP revision.

V.	    Recommended Agency Action

The SIP revision request should be approved.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46368-46369]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0180]

Entry-Level Driver Training: Robert Towle; Application for
Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the exemption application
from Robert Towle, who sought an exemption on behalf of graduating
students of the commercial driver's license (CDL) Prep Class of the New
Hampshire Department of Corrections Special School District Granite
State High School (GSHS) from two requirements in the entry-level
driver training (ELDT) regulations. Mr. Towle requested an exemption
from the requirement that a training provider use instructors who meet
the definition of ``theory instructor.'' Mr. Towle also requested an
exemption from the requirement that an individual who applies for the
first time for a Class A or B CDL, or who upgrades to a Class A or B
CDL, complete training from a provider listed on the Training Provider
Registry (TPR). FMCSA analyzed the exemption application and public
comments and determined that the application lacked evidence that the
exemption would likely achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards;<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2022-0180'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``View Related Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2022-0180'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the
document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    The entry-level driver training (ELDT) regulations, implemented on
February 7, 2022, and set forth in 49 CFR 380, subparts F and G,
established minimum training standards for individuals applying for
certain CDLs and defined curriculum standards for theory (i.e.,
classroom) and behind-the-wheel (BTW) training. These regulations also
established an online training provider registry (TPR), eligibility
requirements for providers to be listed on the TPR, and requirements
for training instructors.
    Under 49 CFR 380.703(a)(4), a training provider must use
instructors who meet the definitions of ``Theory instructor'' and ``BTW
instructor,'' set forth in 49 CFR 380.605, to be eligible for listing
on the TPR. The core definitions of ``Theory instructor'' and ``BTW
instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605 require that instructors hold a CDL of
the same (or higher) class, with all endorsements necessary to operate
the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for which training is to be
provided, and have either: (1) a minimum of 2 years of experience
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the same or higher class and/or the
same endorsement; or (2) at least 2 years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor, and meet all applicable State qualification requirements
for CMV instructors.
    There are exceptions to these requirements for theory instructors:
(1) an instructor is not required to hold a CDL of the same (or higher)
class and with all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, if the instructor previously held a CDL of
the same (or higher) class and complies with the other requirements set
forth in the definition; and (2) training providers offering online
content exclusively are not required to meet State qualification
requirements for theory instructors. In addition, if an instructor's
CDL has been cancelled, suspended, or revoked due to any of the
disqualifying offenses identified in 49 CFR 383.51, the instructor is
prohibited from engaging in theory instruction for 2 years following
the date his or her CDL is reinstated.
    Under 49 CFR 380.609, an individual who applies, for the first
time, for a Class A or Class B CDL, who upgrades to a Class A or B CDL,
or is seeking to obtain a passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous
materials (H) endorsement for the first time must complete driver
training from a provider listed on the TPR, as set forth in 49 CFR part
380, subpart G.

Applicant's Request

    Mr. Towle seeks an exemption from two provisions in the ELDT
regulations: (1) the definition of ``theory instructor''

in 49 CFR 380.605; and (2) the requirement in 49 CFR 380.609(a) that an
individual who applies for the first time for a Class A or B CDL, or
who upgrades to a Class A or B CDL, must complete training from a
provider listed on the TPR.
    Mr. Towle explains that he is an incarcerated inmate in the New
Hampshire State Prison. According to Mr. Towle, the New Hampshire
Department of Corrections operates a Special School District, Granite
State High School (GSHS), that provides a CDL training class. Mr. Towle
states that the requested exemptions would allow eligible students at
GSHS to receive the requisite theory instruction in order to obtain
their Commercial Learner's Permit as a step towards job-readiness as
part of their community re-entry plan.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    In support of his argument that an equivalent level of safety will
be achieved, Mr. Towle notes that New Hampshire is operating under a
pilot model to continue using revised CDL pre-trip vehicle inspection
and revised controls skills test procedures following the completion of
field tests conducted under a waiver granted by the Agency. He argues
that the revised skills test would ``provide a comparable level of
rigor as the current tests to ensure that participating CDL applicants
demonstrate a level of knowledge and skills required to operate CMVs
safely.'' The tests would be administered in a controlled setting,
located within its skills testing facilities. All other safety
requirements, such as requiring the applicant to pass the traditional
on-road test segment of the skills test would continue to apply.
According to Mr. Towle, ``New Hampshire will continue to be prohibited
from using CDLs to field test applicants unless the applicant passes
all the required segments of the skills test.''

V. Public Comments

    FMCSA published a notice requesting public comment on Robert
Towle's application on December 1, 2022 [87 FR 73803]. The Agency
received eight comments; seven opposed granting the exemption and one
supported it. The Truck Safety Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and
Safe Highways, and Parents Against Tired Truckers jointly filed
comments in opposition stating, ``Reducing the experience level and
quality of training provided by verified, qualified instructors
unnecessarily risks the lives of all roadway users and fails to provide
Mr. Towles with the quality of education needed to best set him up for
success as a professional truck driver. The best course of action for
all parties is for GSHS to take the measures necessary to fully comply
with ELDT training requirements in the provision of its CDL training
class.''
    The one commenter in support of granting the exemption stated: ``If
we are serious about rehabilitation and preparing our incarcerated, who
desire to move on with their lives, and wanting to provide for their
families, promote the justice system and become fruitful and ``normal''
citizens, I wholeheartedly agree with this and wish for the FMCSA to
grant this exemption and promote it to all educational systems in
prisons who are providing this training.''

VI. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), to grant an exemption, FMCSA must
``find that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' Among other requirements, 49 CFR 381.310(c)(5)
requires a person seeking an exemption to explain how the exemption
would likely achieve an equivalent level of safety.
    FMCSA evaluated Robert Towle's application and the public comments.
The Agency denies his request for exemption from the definition of
``theory instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605; definitions are not, in and of
themselves, regulatory requirements and are therefore not subject to
exemption. The Agency believes that the requisite two years' experience
in operating a CMV for which training is to be provided, or in
providing BTW instruction for the operation of the CMV, is essential in
providing appropriate theory instruction to entry-level drivers. These
core qualification requirements are embedded in the definition of
``theory instructor'' and, under 49 CFR 380.703(a)(4), ELDT providers
must use theory instructors meeting the criteria set forth in 49 CFR
380.713 (which cross-references 49 CFR 380.605).
    The Agency also denies the request for exemption from 49 CFR
380.609(a) because Mr. Towle did not provide sufficient evidence to
establish that the exemption would provide an equivalent level of
safety as compliance with the existing requirement that applicants
obtain theory instruction from a training provider listed on the TPR.
Mr. Towle states that, under the requested exemption, an equivalent
level of safety would be achieved because the State of New Hampshire is
currently participating in a CDL skills test pilot program, which
provides a ``comparable level of rigor'' to the current CDL skills
test. The State's participation in the pilot program, however, is
entirely unrelated to the requirement that a CDL applicant receive
theory training from a provider listed on the TPR, as set forth in 49
CFR 380.609(a).
    Further, a potential training provider must meet all of the
applicable eligibility requirements to be listed on the TPR, including
the use of qualified theory instructors (as defined in 49 CFR 380.605),
as set forth in 49 CFR 380.703(a)(4). Again, the applicant did not
provide information establishing that an equivalent level of safety
would be maintained by allowing an individual to receive theory
instruction from a training provider that is not listed on the TPR. The
TPR is a critical piece of the ELDT program, ensuring that ELDT
providers meet the eligibility requirements in 49 CFR part 380, subpart
G. The TPR, by receiving and retaining driver certification information
from training providers and relaying it to States prior to the issuance
of a Class A or Class B, also ensures that individual CDL applicants
receive ELDT from a qualified training provider.

    For reasons stated Robert Towle's exemption application is
denied.
Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-15280 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32473-32474]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12809]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0041]

Southwest Research Institute: Modification of Scope of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA is issuing a determination deleting a
test standard from the scope of recognition of a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL), Southwest Research Institute, based on that
NRTL's voluntary request that OSHA reduce its scope of recognition.

DATES: This modification of scope is effective on May 30, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact David Johnson, NRTL
Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3655,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. OSHA's Web
page includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov and select ``N'' in the ``A to Z Index'' located at the
top of the Web page).
    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available under Docket No. OSHA-2006-0041
at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice is also
available on OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov. Access the Federal
Register notice on this Web page by selecting ``F'' under the ``A to Z
Index'' at the top of the page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Determination Regarding Southwest Research Institute

    Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) requested OSHA to delete a test
standard, UL 60950--Information Technology Equipment (see Exhibit OSHA-
2006-0041-003), from its scope of recognition. Subsection II.D of
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 provides that OSHA must inform the public
of such a reduction in scope. Accordingly, OSHA hereby notifies the
public that it is deleting UL 60950 from SWRI's scope of recognition as
of May 30, 2013. As of May 30, 2013, OSHA will no longer accept
certifications by SWRI that products conform to UL 60950, and OSHA will
delete UL 60950 from SWRI's scope of recognition on the OSHA Web page.
    SWRI must notify those NRTL clients for which SWRI certified that
products conformed to UL 60950 that SWRI's scope of recognition no
longer includes UL 60950. SWRI's notification to each affected client
also must inform the client that it must now obtain its product
certification services, with respect to UL 60950, from an NRTL with a
scope of recognition that continues to include UL 60950. SWRI's
notification to each affected client must be in writing and received by
the client within two weeks of the date of this Notice.

II. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 23, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-12809 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86462-86464]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28860]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0683; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01134-T;
Amendment 39-21375; AD 2020-26-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-
1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that during
installation on the final assembly line, a foreign object damage (FOD)
protective end cap was not removed from an extraction duct of the crew
oxygen system. The protective end cap must be removed to prevent a
build-up of oxygen under the flight deck floor, which is a fire risk.
This AD requires inspecting the air extraction duct installation to
determine if a protective end cap is installed, and removing any
protective end cap found. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 3, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 3,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard,
Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec, J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://a220world.airbus.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety 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-
0683.

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-
0683; 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 final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Admin Services Section, FAA, New York ACO
Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:
516-228-7362; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-19, dated May 26,
2020 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-0683.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada
Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2020 (85 FR
48480). The NPRM was prompted by a report that during installation on
the final assembly line, a FOD protective end cap was not removed from
an extraction duct of the crew oxygen system. The protective end cap
must be removed to prevent a build-up of oxygen under the flight deck
floor, which is a fire risk. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting
the air extraction duct installation to determine if a protective end
cap is installed, and removing any protective end cap found. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address this possible ignition source, which could
result in an oxygen-fed fire. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International indicated its
support for the NPRM.

Request To Refer to a Specific Service Information Procedure

    Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL) requested that paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD refer to Step 2.2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220 Service Bulletin BD500-351004,
Issue 001, dated April 8, 2020, instead of referring to the entire
Accomplishment Instructions. DAL stated that only Step 2.2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service information
provides the required steps for performing the inspection and
corrective action required by the proposed AD. DAL noted that the
current language should be more specific when referring to these tasks.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. Only Step 2.2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220
Service Bulletin BD500-351004, Issue 001, dated April 8, 2020, is
necessary to correct the specified unsafe condition. The remaining
portions of the Accomplishment Instructions contain the access and
close procedures, which are not required to address the identified
unsafe condition. The FAA has changed paragraph (g) of this AD to
reference only Step 2.2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
referenced service information.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the change described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that this change will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Canada Limited Partnership has issued A220 Service Bulletin
BD500-351004, Issue 001, dated April 8, 2020. This service information
describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the extraction
duct of the crew oxygen system to determine if a protective end cap is
installed, and removing any protective end cap found. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255           $5,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2020-26-20 Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate
previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP);
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-21375; Docket No. FAA-2020-0683;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01134-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 3, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 50010 through
50018 inclusive, and 50020 through 50039 inclusive.
    (2) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 55003 through
55016 inclusive, and 55018 through 55054 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that during installation on the
final assembly line, a foreign object damage (FOD) protective end
cap was not removed from an extraction duct of the crew oxygen
system. The protective end cap must be removed to prevent a build-up
of oxygen under the flight deck floor, which is a fire risk. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address this possible ignition source, which
could result in an oxygen-fed fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 1,650 flight hours or 8 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection
of the air extraction duct installation to determine if a protective
end cap is installed, and if installed, remove the protective end
cap before further flight, in accordance with Step 2.2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership
A220 Service Bulletin BD500-351004, Issue 001, dated April 8, 2020.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York 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 Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership's TCCA Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2020-19, dated May 26, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0683.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Admin Services Section,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220 Service Bulletin
BD500-351004, Issue 001, dated April 8, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard,
Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec, J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://a220world.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 16, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-28860 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25855-25856]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

    Docket Numbers: RP21-720-002.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021 Second Amendment Filing to New
GMS--Uncommitted Capacity to be effective 5/7/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210504-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-814-000.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Tariff Filing to
be effective 6/4/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210504-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/21.

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

    Dated: May 5, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09929 Filed 5-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 50623]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1117-000.
    Applicants: Sentinel Peak Resources California LLC, Seneca
Resources Company, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of Seneca Resources Company, LLC and Sentinel Peak
Resources California LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220810-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/22.

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

    Dated: August 11, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17685 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38712-38714]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0461]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Shrewsbury River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the drawbridge operation
regulations that govern the operation of the Route 36 Bridge at mile
1.8, across the Shrewsbury River at Highlands, New Jersey. This final
rule removes the regulations for the Route 36 Bridge because the bridge
has been removed and replaced with a fixed bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0461 and are available by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0461 in the
``keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the 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,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because
we are removing the operation regulations for a moveable draw bridge
that has been replaced with a fixed span bridge that does not open.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The drawbridge listed under the
regulations we are removing has already been replaced with a fixed span
highway bridge that does not open; therefore, the regulations are no
longer applicable or necessary.

Background and Purpose

    The drawbridge operation regulations for the Route 36 Bridge at
mile 1.8, across the Shrewsbury River at Highlands, New Jersey, are
listed at 33 CFR 117.755(a).
    The bridge has been demolished and replaced with a fixed span
structure; therefore, the Coast Guard is removing the drawbridge
operation regulations for that bridge because they are no longer
applicable or necessary since the bridge they govern, the Route 36
Bridge at mile 1.8, has been removed.

Discussion of Rule

    This final rule is removing the drawbridge operation regulations
listed at 33 CFR 117.755(a) that govern the operation of the Route 36
Bridge at mile 1.8, across the Shrewsbury River at Highlands, New
Jersey, which has been demolished and replaced with a fixed span
bridge.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that we are removing regulations that are no longer applicable or
necessary.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This conclusion is based upon the fact that we are removing
regulations that are no longer applicable or necessary.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so they can better evaluate its
effect on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.755 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.755  Shrewsbury River.

    The draw of the Monmouth County highway bridge at mile 4.0, across
the Shrewsbury River at Sea Bright, New Jersey, shall operate as
follows:
    (a) The draw shall open on signal at all times; except that, from
May 15 through September 30, on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays, between
9 a.m. and 7 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half hour.
    (b) The draw need not be opened at any time for a sail boat unless
it is operating under auxiliary power or is being towed by a powered
vessel.
    (c) The owners of the bridge shall keep in good legible condition
two clearance gages with figures not less than eight inches high,
designed, installed, and maintained according to the provisions of
Sec.  118.160 of this chapter.

    Dated: June 18, 2010.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-16269 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 54987-54988]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-25-002]

Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 19, 2009.
    Take notice that on October 12, 2009, Crosstex North Texas
Pipeline, L.P. filed a Statement of Operating Conditions, including a
Statement of Rates summary page, pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the
Commission's regulations and to comply with the Commission's letter
order issued on September 10, 2009, in Docket Nos. PR09-25-000 and
PR05-21-001.
    Any person desiring to participate in this proceeding must file a
motion 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 on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern on Monday, October 26, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25621 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P