[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44543]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20337]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0226; FRL-9968-16-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA: Emission Reduction Credits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
update the emission reduction credits regulation. EPA is proposing to
approve portions of the SIP revision submitted by the State of Georgia,
through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Environmental
Protection Division on September 15, 2008. This action is being taken
pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0226 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's implementation plan revision as
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document
should do so at this time.

    Dated: September 13, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-20337 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40353-40354]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2985-008 Massachusetts]

Onyx Specialty Papers, Inc; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897), Commission staff has reviewed the Onyx Specialty
Papers, Inc.'s application for surrender of project license for the
Willow Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2985) and has
prepared an environmental assessment (EA). The project is located on
the Housatonic River, in the Town of Lee, Berkshire County,
Massachusetts.
    The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed surrender of license and
concludes that the proposal would not constitute a major federal action
that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The EA also may be viewed on the
Commission's Internet Web site at (www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. Additional information
about the project is available from the Commission's Web site using the
eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Carlisa Linton by telephone at
202-502-8416 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: June 29, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16628 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68422]
[DOCID:fr10no05-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-71-003]

Gulf South Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 3, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 15, 2005, Gulf South Pipeline Company
(Gulf South) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 2, the following tariff sheet, with an effective
date of June 20, 2005:

Twenty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1

    Gulf South states that the filing is being made in compliance with
the letter orders issued on June 20, 2005, and September 9, 2005, in
the above-referenced proceeding.
    Gulf South states that copies of the filing has been made to all
parties to the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on November 10, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6200 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61999-62002]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0957; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-062-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Model 767 airplanes. The
existing AD currently requires, for certain airplanes, reworking the
bonding jumper assemblies on the drain tube assemblies of the slat
track housing of the wings. For certain other airplanes, the existing
AD requires repetitive inspections of the drain tube assemblies of the
slat track housing of the wings to find discrepancies, corrective
actions if necessary, and terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. This proposed AD would also require replacing the drain
tube assemblies. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also
require installing an additional electrostatic bond path for the number
5 and 8 inboard slat track drain tube assemblies. For certain other
airplanes, this proposed AD would also require reworking the bonding
jumper assembly. This proposed AD would also revise the applicability
to include additional airplanes. This proposed AD results from reports
of fuel leaks from certain drain locations of the slat track housing
near the engine exhaust nozzles of the wings, which could result in a
fire when the airplane is stationary, or taxiing at low speed; reports
of a bonding jumper assembly of certain drain tubes that did not meet
bonding specifications and could result in electrostatic discharge and
an in-tank ignition source; and reports of fuel leaks onto the main
landing gear (MLG) as a result of a cracked drain tube at the number 5
or 8 slat track housing, which could let fuel drain from the main fuel
tanks into the dry bay area of the wings and onto hot MLG brakes and
result in a fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 22,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https:[sol][sol]www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-2384; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0957;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-062-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 12, 2001, we issued AD 2001-14-19, amendment 39-12330 (66
FR 38350, July 24, 2001), for certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That
AD requires, for certain airplanes, reworking the bonding jumper
assemblies on the drain tube assemblies of the slat track housing of
the wings. For certain other airplanes, that AD requires repetitive
inspections of the drain tube assemblies of the slat track housing of
the wings to find discrepancies, corrective actions if necessary, and
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. That AD was

prompted by reports of fuel leaks from certain drain locations of the
slat track housing near the engine exhaust nozzles of the wings, which
could result in a fire when the airplane is stationary or during low
speed taxiing. That AD was also prompted by the discovery that the
bonding jumper assembly of certain drain tube assemblies installed
during production did not meet the current bonding specifications and
could result in electrostatic discharge and an in-tank ignition source.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2001-14-19, we have received reports of fuel
leaks onto the MLG of several airplanes due to a cracked drain tube at
the number 8 slat track housing. No fires have been reported. The
cracking was found on a rerouted drain tube with a flexible part.
(Installing this drain tube is described in Boeing Service Bulletin
767-57A0060, and is required by AD 2001-14-19.) An investigation by
Boeing revealed that the drain tubes with flexible parts cracked as a
result of a high intensity engine vibration--higher than the tube's
design permitted. In one case, maintenance personnel observed fuel
leakage from the pylon area after the airplane had landed.

Relevant Service Information

    AD 2001-14-19 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060,
Revision 1, dated December 31, 1998 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F
series airplanes), as the appropriate source of service information for
the repetitive inspections and terminating action. Boeing has issued
Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 2, dated January 31, 2002, to
include minor procedural changes. No additional work is necessary if
the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, dated
January 30, 1997; or Revision 1, dated December 31, 1998; were done.
    AD 2001-14-19 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068, dated
September 16, 1999 (for Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes), as
the appropriate source of service information for reworking the bonding
jumper assemblies. Boeing has issued Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-
0068, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002, which corrects an error involving
the original bonding jumper ``A'' installation sequence. Because of
this error, this service bulletin specifies that additional work,
including new rework procedures, is necessary.
    We also have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletins 767-57A0094 (for
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) and 767-57A0095 (for
Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 2, both dated December
17, 2009. These service bulletins describe procedures for replacing
drain tube assemblies that have flexible parts; the replacement
assemblies have new aluminum drain tubes without flexible parts.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0094, Revision 2, dated December 17,
2009, specifies the prior or concurrent accomplishment, for certain
airplanes, of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-57A0060, Revision 2, dated
January 31, 2002; and 767-57-0068, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2001-14-19 and retain the requirements of that AD.
This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the new actions
specified in the service information described previously, except as
described below.

Difference Between Service Bulletin and Proposed AD

    Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002,
specifies that the compliance time to rework the bonding jumper
assembly (required by paragraph (l) of this NPRM) is 48 months after
that date. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and
normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the
modification. We also considered that this work, if not previously
accomplished as an AMOC to AD 2001-14-19, must be done concurrently
with the new requirements of this proposed AD.

Changes to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would revise the applicability of AD 2001-14-19 by
adding line numbers 758 through 921, which were produced since that AD
was issued. Those airplanes had received a production change equivalent
to the actions required by the existing AD, and are now subject to the
identified unsafe condition.
    This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2001-14-19.
Since that AD was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Corresponding  requirement in  this
    Requirement in AD 2001-14-19                 proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          paragraph (a)                        paragraph (g)
          paragraph (b)                        paragraph (h)
          paragraph (c)                        paragraph (i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 808 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                                U.S.-
            Action                  Work hours        Parts     Cost per airplane   registered     Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (required by AD      1................           $0  $85 per                    255  $21,675 per
 2001-14-19).                                                    inspection cycle.               inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Drain tube replacement          12...............        5,236  $6,256...........          255  $1,595,280.
 (required by AD 2001-14-19).
Bonding jumper assembly rework  4................          322  $662.............           47  $31,114.
 (required by AD 2001-14-19).
Drain tube replacement (new     Between 7 and 11,        1,117  Between $1,712             356  Between $609,472
 proposed action).               depending on                    and $2,052.                     and $730,512.
                                 configuration.

Installation of electrostatic   4................          322  $662.............           47  $31,114.
 bond path (new proposed
 action).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-12330 (66 FR
38350, July 24, 2001) and adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0957; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-062-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November
22, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2001-14-19, Amendment 39-12330.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0094, Revision 2, dated
December 17, 2009.
    (2) Model 767-400ER series airplanes, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0095, Revision 2, dated December 17, 2009.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of fuel leaks from certain
drain locations of the slat track housing near the engine exhaust
nozzles of the wings, which could result in a fire when the airplane
is stationary, or taxiing at low speed; reports of a bonding jumper
assembly of certain drain tubes that did not meet bonding
specifications and could result in electrostatic discharge and an
in-tank ignition source; and reports of fuel leaks onto the main
landing gear (MLG) as a result of a cracked drain tube at the number
5 or 8 slat track housing, which could let fuel drain from the main
fuel tanks into the dry bay area of the wings and onto hot MLG
brakes and result in a fire.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2001-14-19, AMENDMENT 39-12330, With
Revised Service Information

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Action

    (g) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0060, Revision 1, dated December 31, 1998: Within 500 flight
hours after August 28, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-14-19),
do a general visual inspection of the drain tube assemblies of the
slat track housings of the wings to find discrepancies (loose
fittings, cracked tubes, fuel leaks), per Part I of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060,
Revision 1, dated December 31, 1998; or Revision 2, dated January
31, 2002. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 2 may
be used.
    (1) If any discrepancies are found, before further flight,
rework the drain tube assembly per Part II of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1,
dated December 31, 1998; or Revision 2, dated January 31, 2002.
After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 2 may be used.
Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours
until accomplishment of the requirements in paragraph (h) of this
AD.
    (2) If no discrepancies are found, repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours, until
accomplishment of the requirements in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    Note 1:  For the purposes of this AD, a general visual
inspection is defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or
exterior area, installation, or assembly to find obvious damage,
failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under
normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar
lighting, flashlight, or drop-light and may require removal or
opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may
be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''

Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    (h) For airplanes specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within
6,000 flight hours or 24

months after August 28, 2001, whichever occurs first, replace the
drain tube assemblies of the slat track housings of the wings
(including general visual inspection and repair) per Part III of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060,
Revision 1, dated December 31, 1998; or Revision 2, dated January
31, 2002. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 2 may
be used. Any applicable repair must be accomplished prior to further
flight. Accomplishment of this paragraph terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Rework of Bonding Jumper Assemblies

    (i) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-
0068, dated September 16, 1999: Within 5,000 flight cycles or 22
months after August 28, 2001, whichever occurs first, rework the
bonding jumper assembly of the drain tube assemblies of the slat
track housing of the wings (including general visual inspection and
repair) per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-57-0068, dated September 16, 1999; or Revision 1, dated
May 9, 2002. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 1
may be used. Any applicable repair must be accomplished prior to
further flight.

New Requirements of this AD

Drain Tube Replacement

    (j) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace affected drain tube assemblies of the number 5 and number 8
inboard slat track housing, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0094 (for Model 767-
200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or 767-57A0095 (for Model
767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 2, both dated December
17, 2009.

Concurrent Requirements

    (k) For airplanes in Groups 1, 2, and 3, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0094, Revision 2, dated December 17, 2009:
The actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of
this AD, as applicable, must be done before or concurrently with the
requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (1) For Groups 1 and 2: The requirements of paragraph (h) of
this AD.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: Installation of an additional
electrostatic bond path for the number 5 and 8 inboard slat track
drain tube assemblies, in accordance with Part IV of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060,
Revision 1, dated December 31, 1998; or Revision 2, dated January
31, 2002.
    (3) For Group 3 airplanes: The requirements of paragraph (i) of
this AD.
    (l) For airplanes identified in paragraph (i) of this AD, on
which the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD were done
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57-0068, dated September 16, 1999: Prior to or
concurrently with the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD,
rework the bonding jumper assembly for the number 5 and 8 inboard
slat track housing drain tube installation, in accordance with Part
2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57-0068, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (m) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with an applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1
of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.

                                        Table 1--Credit Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Affected airplanes               Service Bulletin          Revision level                Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series  Boeing Service Bulletin  Original...............  June 2, 2005.
 airplanes.                             767-57A0094.            1......................  December 19, 2006.
Model 767-400ER series airplanes.....  Boeing Service Bulletin  Original...............  June 2, 2005.
                                        767-57A0095.            1......................  December 19, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2001-14-19,
Amendment 39-12330, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 1, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25255 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59704-59706]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Ic21-34-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-500 and Ferc-
505); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collections, FERC-500 (Application for License/Relicense
for Water Projects with More than 10 Megawatt (MW) Capacity); and FERC-
505 (Application for Small Hydropower Projects and Conduit Facilities
including License/Relicense, Exemption, and Qualifying Conduit Facility
Determinations).

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due December 27,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may provide your comments (identified by Docket No.
IC21-34-000) on FERC-500 and/or FERC-505 by one of the following
methods:
     Electronic Filing: http://www.ferc.gov (preferred method)
Documents must be filed in acceptable native applications and print-to-
PDF, but not in scanned or picture format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Titles: FERC-500 (Application for License/
Relicense for Water Projects with More than 10 Megawatt (MW) Capacity)
and FERC-505 (Application for Small Hydropower Projects and Conduit
Facilities including License/Relicense, Exemption, and Qualifying
Conduit Facility Determination).
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0058 (FERC-500) and 1902-0115 (FERC-505).
    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information
collections.
    Abstract: Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ authorizes the
Commission to grant hydropower licenses and exemptions to citizens of
the United States, or to any corporation organized under the laws of
United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality.
Holders of such licenses and exemptions construct, operate, and
maintain dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission
lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the
development and improvement of navigation and for the development,
transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any
of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has
jurisdiction. This jurisdiction stems from Congressional authority to
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or
upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 791a-823g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-500 and FERC-505 comprise applications and other information
collection activities implemented under numerous regulations. Some of
the regulations are relevant to both FERC-500 and FERC-505, and others
are relevant only to FERC-500 or FERC-505. Effective October 4,
2021,\2\

information collection activities within FERC-500 are for projects with
an installed capacity of more than 10 MW. Information collection
activities within FERC-505 are for other smaller projects. The
applicability and required contents of each activity are listed at the
pairs of regulations listed in the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Before October 4, 2021, FERC-500 applied only to projects
with an installed capacity of more than 5 MW. On August 5, 2021, the
Commission published a final rule that affected the paperwork
burdens of FERC-500 by changing the regulatory threshold for certain
licensing requirements from 5 MW to 10 MW. As a result, the
regulatory threshold for FERC-500 is now projects with an installed
capacity of more than 10 MW. See Final Rule, Docket RM20-21-000, 86
FR 42710 (Aug. 5, 2021).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Title                                   18 CFR cites                 FERC-500      FERC-505
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for License for Major \3\        4.40 and 4.41..........................          Yes           Yes
 Unconstructed Project and Major Modified
 Project.
Application for License for Major Project--  4.50 and 4.51..........................          Yes           Yes
 Existing Dam.
Application for License for Minor \4\ Water  4.60 and 4.61..........................           No           Yes
 Power Projects and Major Water Power
 Projects More Than 10 Megawatts.
Application for License for Transmission     4.70 and 4.71..........................          Yes           Yes
 Line Only.
Exemption of Small Conduit Hydroelectric     4.90 and 4.92..........................           No           Yes
 Facilities.
Exemption of Small Hydroelectric Power       4.101 and 4.107........................           No           Yes
 Projects of 10 Megawatts or Less.
Application for Amendment of...............  4.200 and 4.201........................          Yes           Yes
License....................................
Notice of Intent to Construct Qualifying     4.400 and 4.401........................           No           Yes
 Conduit Hydropower Facilities.
Application Under the Integrated Licensing   5.1 and 5.18...........................           No           Yes
 Process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ As defined at 18 CFR 4.30(b)(14) through 4.30(b)(16), a
``major'' project has a total installed generating capacity of more
than 1.5 MW.
    \4\ As defined at 18 CFR 4.30(b)(17), a ``minor'' project has a
total installed generating capacity of 1.5 MW or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the ``contents'' regulations listed above requires
information that assists the Commission in identifying the respondent
and the type of proposed project. In addition, certain types of
applications must include all \5\ or some \6\ of the following
exhibits:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The following regulations require Exhibits A through G: 18
CFR 4.41, 4.51, 4.61, and 4.71.
    \6\ The following regulations do not require Exhibits B, C, and
D: 18 CFR 4.92 and 4.107. The regulations at 18 CFR 4.201 and 5.18
pertain to several types of applications and projects. The exhibits
required by those regulations vary, depending on the type of
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exhibit A is a description of the project.
     Exhibit B is a statement of project operation and resource
utilization.
     Exhibit C is a proposed construction schedule for the
project.
     Exhibit D is a statement of project costs and financing.
     Exhibit E is an environmental report.
     Exhibit F consists of general design drawings of the
principal project works described under Exhibit A and supporting
information used as the basis of design.
     Exhibit G is a map of the project.
    No exhibits are required in a Notice of Intent to Construct
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities under 18 CFR 4.401. However,
the Notice of Intent must include:
     Statements that the proposed project will use the
hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit and that the
proposed facility has not been licensed or exempted from the licensing
requirements and Part I of the FPA;
     A description of the proposed facility;
     Project drawings;
     If applicable, the preliminary permit number for the
proposed facility; and
     Verification in accordance with 18 CFR 4.401(g).
    In addition to the reporting requirements described above, FERC-500
and FERC-505 also contain requirements for those entities who
ultimately receive a FERC license or exemption. Both information
collections include an activity related to recreation signage (18 CFR
8.1 and 8.2), which is used to inform the public of appropriate uses at
the project. FERC-500 includes an annual conveyance report (18 CFR
141.15), which must be submitted only if a conveyance of easements or
rights-of-way across project lands, or a lease of project lands, has
occurred in the previous year.
    Types of Respondents: Entities requesting Licenses, Relicenses,
Exemptions, or Qualifying Conduit Facility Determinations, and certain
entities in receipt of Commission Licenses and Exemptions.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: For FERC-500, the Commission estimates
487 responses, 320,962 hours, and $27,923,694 annually. For FERC-505,
the Commission estimates 324 responses, 24,555 hours, and $2,136,285
annually. These burdens are itemized in detail in the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Number of
                                          respondents                                                   Average annual burden hours & total annual cost
           Type of response              and responses     Average burden & cost \8\  per response                   (Column B x Column C)
                                              \7\
A.                                                   B.  C..........................................  D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-500, Application for License/                    9  35,602.55 hrs.; $3,097,421.85..............  320,422.95 hrs.; $27,876,796.65.
 Relicense for Water Projects with
 Greater than 10 MW Capacity \9\.
FERC-500, Request for Authorization to                5  40 hrs.; $3,480............................  200 hrs.; $17,400.
 Use Expedited Licensing Process.
FERC-500, Annual Conveyance Reports...               41  3 hrs.; $261...............................  123 hrs.; $10,701
FERC-500, Recreation Posting..........              432  0.5 hr.; $43.50............................  216 hrs.; $18,792.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotals for FERC-500............              487  N/A........................................  320,961.95 hrs.; $27,923,689.65.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-505, for Small Hydropower                       32  756.59 hrs.; $65,823.33....................  24,210.88 hrs.; $2,106,346.56.
 Projects and Conduit Facilities
 including License/Relicense,
 Exemption, and Qualifying Conduit
 Facility Determinations.
FERC-505, Request for Authorization to                5  40 hrs.; $3,480............................  200 hrs.; $17,400.
 Use Expedited Licensing Process.
FERC-505, Recreation Posting..........              287  0.5 hr.; $43.50............................  143.5 hrs.; $12,484.50.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Totals for FERC-505...........              324  N/A........................................  24,554.38 hrs.; $2,136,231.06.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Totals............................              811  N/A........................................  345,516.33 hrs.; $30,068,620.71.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \7\ There is one response per respondent for each activity in
this information collection.
    \8\ Commission staff estimates that the average industry hour4ly
cost for this information collection is approximated by the current
FERC 2021 average hourly costs for wages and benefits, i.e., $87.00/
hour.
    \9\ The previously reported 33 responses associated with
Comprehensive Plans were incorrect and not consistent in how we have
approached the number of respondents for this Information
Collection. As a result, the total number of hours associated with
the Comprehensive Plans requirement was moved to the total number of
hours associated with the application process. The Commission does
not break down pieces of this process (as it is all considered one
application) and so this edit was made for consistency across the
information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: October 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23481 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY MID-CYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

FACE-TO-FACE MEETING AGENDA

March 12, 2009

EPA Building at One Potomac Yard

Fourth Floor Conference Center North, Room N-4830

2777 S. Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

Thursday, March 12, 2009

8:30-9:00 a.m.	Registration

9:00-9:10 a.m.	Welcome and Outline of Purpose	Dr. John Giesy, Subcommittee Chair

9:10-9:15 a.m.	DFO Welcome and Charge	Greg Susanke, Subcommittee DFO,

	   	- Administrative Procedures &	Office of Research and Development

		FACA Rules

	9:15-10:15 a.m.	Summary of Progress and 	Dr. Alan Hecht					Future Directions	Director for Sustainability,

			- Discussion and Q&A	Office of Research and Development

	10:15-10:30 a.m.	Performance Measures	Mya Sjogren

				- Long Term & Annual, Client	Acting Team Leader for Performance

				Survey, Bibliometric Analysis	& Accountability,

					Office of Research and Development

	10:30-12:00 p.m.	Subcommittee Discussion	STS Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	12:00-1:00 p.m.		Lunch

	1:00-1:10 p.m.		Public Comment	Public Comment

	1:10-2:30 p.m.		Subcommittee Discussion	STS Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	2:30-2:40 p.m.		Break

	2:40-3:30 p.m.		Program Rating Discussion	STS Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	3:30-4:00 p.m.		Report Out & Wrap-up	Dr. John Giesy, Subcommittee Chair

	4:00 p.m.		Adjourn

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   2

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 73994]
[DOCID:fr14de05-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-15-002]

Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 8, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 5, 2005, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline,
LLC (Garden Banks) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the
Commission's November 4, 2005 order, 113 FERC ] 61,132 (2005), issued
in this proceeding.
    Garden Banks states that copies of its filing have been mailed to
all customers, interested state regulatory commissions, and any parties
on the Commission's official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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. E5-7320 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EO 12866 Interagency Comments: Continuous Emission Monitoring; Quality-Assurance Requirements During National Emergencies (RIN 2060-AU85)

 EPA seeks comment on whether the temporary measures in this interim final rule in "national emergency" situations should be made permanent and suggests that this interim final rule may be treated as a proposed rule to that effect.  The interim final rule does not provide any justification or explanation for why this temporary exemption should be made permanent.  If EPA were to decide to make these measures permanent in a subsequent final rule, absent additional procedures, the final rule would be vulnerable to challenge for lack of notice as EPA would not have articulated a rationale for making the measures permanent.    EPA has not adequately explained why these temporary measures will extend for 180 days as opposed to, for example, until the end of the national emergency that triggered their application.  Under many presently-discussed scenarios it is easy to foresee that the protective measures currently in place to respond to COVID-19 will no longer be applied in a matter of months.  EPA should address that potential as part of its explanation for why 180 days is necessary.    The interim final rule does not address why the exceptions for essential activities in State stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders do not already adequately accommodate the need to maintain monitoring and reporting functions at covered facilities.  While we have not conducted an exhaustive review, we are aware that many such orders exempt maintenance of critical infrastructure, like power plants.  It is thus unclear that the premise of the rule is correct -- i.e., that essential personnel could not undertake required testing.  It seems that such personnel are naturally limited in number and these functions are relevantly infrequent, such that other protective measures (sanitizing, social distancing, use of protective equipment) could be deployed.  EPA should address those considerations.    The draft interim final rule often says that these measures apply when an operator "may be unable to meet test deadlines for reasons related to a declared national emergency."  That suggested threshold is vague and it suggests a wide, and easily satisfied, array of circumstances that trigger the measures in the draft interim final rule.  EPA should consider more definitive language for circumstances that render compliance "impossible," "impracticable," or "unreasonable" due to the unnecessary risk of exposure to the coronavirus.   The substance of the draft indicates a higher threshold for applicability in practice, but phrases in the draft such as the above could be used to argue that the rule is too permissive.        EPA has not clearly articulated the characteristics of a "national emergency" that would underpin the application of the measures in the interim final rule.  This shortcoming would be especially problematic if EPA were to finalize a rule making these measures permanent.  Even in lay terms, a national emergency can take many forms, including many situations that would not be expected to have any impact on environmental monitoring or reporting.  Relatedly, and considering the lack of concrete definition, the draft interim final rule should not rely as heavily as it does on the broad concept of "national emergency."    Related to the prior comment, EPA should provide more information and technical detail about the impending deadlines during the COVID emergency and the immediacy of the impact of the COVID emergency on operators to justify the good cause exemption.  The draft's reference to, and reliance on, general concerns expressed to EPA by some operators is not a persuasive justification in the absence of specific facts and evidence that could be included in the administrative record.  As drafted, there is no indication that such facts support EPA's action here.    It is unclear when facilities would need to perform validation, such that EPA could not give any notice. Could EPA provide a table of applicable dates so that it is easy to see what deadlines would occur during the emergency?    EPA does not explain why it could not give a notice period shorter than the typical 45-day notice period referenced in the interim final rule.  EPA has provided shorter notice periods in the past, and the preamble should address why a shorter notice period could not be provided.     EPA does not explain why it does not anticipate that the interim final rule would adversely affect emissions.  Such an assumption is likely to be challenged in litigation.  Moreover, if that were the case, why must the data be validated in the first place?    There is not an adequate explanation as to why EPA could not use its case-by-case exemption authority here.  Is EPA saying that it is not permissible to grant exemptions to multiple units or is it that granting exemptions on a case-by-case basis is administratively burdensome and EPA is trying to minimize resource burdens when the COVID emergency calls for people to stay home?


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42976-42977]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0028]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on March 17, 2020, CSX
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 225, Railroad Accidents/Incidents:
Reports Classification, and Investigations. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2020-0028.
    Specifically, CSX requests a waiver from 49 CFR 225.25(h), which
requires, in part, that monthly listings of employee reportable
injuries, occupational illnesses, and fatalities be ``posted in a
conspicuous location'' at each establishment where a railroad
reasonably expects its employees to report during a 12-month period,
and that employees ``have the opportunity to observe the posted list.''
CSX requests that in lieu of a paper copy of the listing, to make the
required information available via a web portal that allows employees
access to information from computer terminals and employees' personal
electronic devices. CSX states that any employee who prefers a paper
listing would have the option to request a hard copy of the listing
from his or her supervisor.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.

    Communications received by August 31, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-15188 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31273-31277]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0118]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio
Rivers, Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation
area for certain waters of the Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers
near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these
navigable waters due to the high volume of vessels navigating the area.
This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from
loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring, remaining, or drifting more
than 100 feet from any river bank in the regulated navigation area
unless authorized in order to reduce vessel congestion and provide for
safe passage of transiting vessels in the center of the rivers. It
would also prohibit persons and vessels from loitering, anchoring,
stopping, mooring, remaining, or drifting in any manner that impedes
the safe passage of another vessel to any launching ramp, marine, or
fleeting area unless authorized. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0118 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Shawn Simeral, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MSU Marine Safety Unit
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
RNA Regulated Navigation Area

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA) for certain waters of the Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers
near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The confluence of these three rivers is
a high traffic area for both commercial and recreational vessels. It is
also a destination for recreational vessels to anchor and loiter during
the summer months due to the proximity of multiple entertainment
venues. The Coast Guard is concerned about the potential for collisions
between commercial and recreational vessels and the impact of vessel
congestion on maritime commerce in this area. A Map/Chartlet depicting
the area, as well as images depicting the severe vessel congestion in
this area, are included where indicated in the docket under ADDRESSES.

A. The Point of Pittsburgh

    The Point of Pittsburgh is located at the confluence of the
Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers, and is surrounded by the city
of Pittsburgh, PA. The city of Pittsburgh is located in the Emsworth
pool, often referred to as the ``Pitt Pool,'' which forms the 24-mile
pool around the city.\1\ The Emsworth pool is the water area from
upriver of the Emsworth Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, to Lock 2 on
the Allegheny River and to the Braddock Locks and Dam on the
Monongahela River. In 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
ranked the Port of Pittsburgh fourth among inland waterway ports and
31st among ports in the United States for tonnage traffic. The area
around the Point of Pittsburgh also includes eight highway bridges.
These bridges create navigation limitations for tows and passenger
vessels due to piers and overhead clearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Pool'' is a term used to describe the area between
navigation dams of the rivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Port of Pittsburgh contains 27 marinas and has 21
public boat landings, and the Pitt Pool contains 12 marinas and three
public boat launches. Over the past three years, an average of 7,860
recreational boats transited through the three locks of the Pitt Pool
annually. The Point of Pittsburgh area contains multiple entertainment
venues near the riverfront that include: A National Football League
stadium, Major League Baseball stadium, casino, United Soccer League
stadium, amphitheater, state park, science center, museums, convention
center, and various memorials, monuments, trails, and restaurants.

B. The Marine Community Concerns

    A wide variety of both commercial and recreational traffic transit
the rivers around the Point, including: Barges and tow boats in transit
up bound on the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, and down bound on the
Ohio River, ferries to the North Shore of the Ohio River for events,
passenger vessel cruises, and recreational craft. Due to the heavy
concentration of entertainment activities, the Point of Pittsburgh is a
destination for recreational craft to moor, anchor, or drift in the
area. Recreational vessels will often raft off to one another from the
shore or from an anchored vessel, creating congestion and hazardous
conditions for less maneuverable vessels transiting the river current.
    During a Passenger Vessel Association Rivers Region Meeting in
November of 2016, participants notified Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit
(MSU) Pittsburgh of navigation and safety issues involving vessel
congestion near the Point of Pittsburgh during the summer months. As a
result, MSU Pittsburgh formed a Congested Waterways Committee that
meets monthly to investigate the congestion issue and discuss concerns
regarding use of the waterway. The committee includes: Tow boat
operators, commercial passenger vessel operators, port executives, safe
boating council members, industry representatives, and members from
local recreational boat associations, along with representatives of the
Coast Guard Auxiliary, USACE, and city and state law enforcement
officials.
    MSU Pittsburgh learned that during summer months, especially on
weekends, large numbers of recreational vessels anchor or drift in the
vicinity of the Point of Pittsburgh, which created an unsafe navigation
situation for the larger commercial vessels utilizing the waterway.
Some of the participants discussed several near misses between
commercial and recreational vessels, but currently there is no standard
definition of a near miss as it pertains to this issue, nor has it been
tracked. MSU Pittsburgh received comments about the dangers of
recreational vessels anchoring or drifting near the sailing line,\2\
and conversely, about the dangers of commercial vessels that seem to
expect vessels to give way as a matter of course. The local ferries
also expressed concerns regarding vessels blocking the approaches to
their loading areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The phrase ``sailing line'' is defined as the middle of the
river as marked on the USACE river charts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commercial vessel representatives were frustrated that
recreational vessel users are not all required to have knowledge of
navigation rules prior to operating a vessel.\3\ They also stated that
during times of congestion, commercial vessels will often halt transit
of vessels or limit passenger vessel cruise areas rather than proceed
into potentially unsafe transit conditions. These events have a
negative impact on their businesses. Industry representatives discussed
their vessel size, stopping limitations, limited maneuverability, and
proximity to bridges as reasons they consider transit during congestion
as unsafe. They stated that recreational vessels often maneuver very
close to their vessels or cross in front as they transit. Everyone
agreed that the three rivers of Pittsburgh should be able to be used by
both commercial and recreational vessels, and that the safety of the
waterways users should be the top priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pennsylvania law states any person born on or after January
1, 1982, shall not operate, on the waters of this Commonwealth, a
motorboat without first obtaining a certificate of boating safety
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Special Local Regulations

    During the summer of 2018, MSU Pittsburgh was notified of two
outdoor concerts at Heinz Field. Due to the proximity of the stadium to
the Ohio River, large concentrations of recreational vessels were
anticipated throughout concert weekends. To mitigate the navigational
impact, MSU Pittsburgh permitted these concerts as marine events and
established temporary Special Local Regulations to maintain a safe and
clear navigation area during the concert weekends.
    On April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; Monongahela (MM
0.22), Allegheny (MM 0.8), and Ohio Rivers (0.8), Pittsburgh, PA (83 FR
16808) for the Luke Bryan concert. There, we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
the concert. During the comment period that ended on May 2, 2018, we
received no comments. On May 18, 2018, the Coast Guard published a
temporary final rule

establishing the Special Local Regulation (83 FR 23218).
    On April 19, 2018, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled Special
Local Regulation; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, Pittsburgh
PA (83 FR 17333) for the Kenny Chesney concert. There, we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to the concert. During the comment period that ended May 4,
2018, we received no comments. On May 18, 2018, the Coast Guard
published a temporary final rule establishing the Special Local
Regulation (83 FR 23224).
    Both temporary Special Local Regulations prohibited persons and
vessels from loitering, anchoring, stopping, or drifting more than 100
feet from any riverbank or act in a manner that impedes the passage of
another vessel to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area. In
advance of the concert weekends, MSU Pittsburgh conducted outreach/
education. MSU Pittsburgh provided flyers to the three locks and dams
of the Pitt Pool to be given to boaters entering the pool throughout
the concert weekends. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary patrols
also provided flyers to boaters in the Pitt Pool during the concerts.
MSU Pittsburgh personnel participated in news media interviews with two
local TV stations and one local newspaper. According to the USACE, 529
recreational and 133 commercial vessels transited through the locks of
the Pitt Pool throughout the concert weekends. Additionally, 316
passenger vessel trips were conducted in close proximity to Heinz
Field. Despite the concentration of vessels, both recreational and
commercial vessels were able to transit safely throughout the weekend,
and positive feedback was received from industry, other government
agencies, and recreational representatives.
    This NPRM proposes to establish an RNA using the same waterway
controls as were used in the previous Special Local Regulations. While
these Special Local Regulations were effective in mitigating the
hazards of heavy congestion in and around the Pitt Pool during said
events, a more permanent solution is required to handle the
consistently heavy traffic throughout peak boating season. The heavy
congestion conditions addressed by the Special Local Regulations are
present throughout the summer months, and it would be exceptionally
laborious for MSU Pittsburgh personnel to establish individual Special
Local Regulations to mitigate every instance. The Coast Guard feels
that a permanent RNA is the most effective solution for mitigating the
dangers of heavy congestion, using proven methods, with minimal impacts
to vessel traffic operating under normal waterway conditions.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons,
vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the
Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Commander of the Eighth Coast Guard District has determined that
potential hazards associated with the risk of collision in this area
would be a safety concern for any vessel loitering, anchoring,
stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet from a riverbank or in a
manner that impedes the passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area. The Coast Guard proposes this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041 (previously 33 U.S.C.
1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The District Commander proposes to establish a regulated navigation
area for all navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio
Rivers between the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8
of the Allegheny River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22 of the
Monongahela River, and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8 of
the Ohio River. This proposed rule would apply to any vessel operating
within the area, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel
engaged in law enforcement, servicing aids to navigation, or surveying,
maintaining, or improving waters within the regulated area. No vessel
would be permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in
any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative. In addition, no vessel or person would be
permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift more than 100 feet
from any riverbank unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    On the other hand, this rule allows vessels and people to loiter,
anchor, stop, remain, or drift within the regulated area so long as
they are within 100 feet of the shore or riverbank. By requiring all
vessels to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift only within 100 feet
of the riverbanks, the center of the rivers are less likely to be
obstructed for navigating vessels. The regulatory text we are proposing
appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and impact of the regulated navigation area. The regulated
navigation area uses minimally intrusive guidelines for vessel
operation designed to improve the safety of navigation on the waters of
the area. This regulated navigation area does not meet any of the
criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated navigation area may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated navigation area
that prohibits loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring, remaining, or
drifting in any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to
any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01.
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.823 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.823  Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Regulated Navigation Area

    (a) Location. The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA):
The waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers between the
Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8 on the Allegheny
River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22 on the Monongahela River,
and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8 on the Ohio River.
    (b) Applicability. This section applies to any vessel operating
within the RNA, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel
engaged in:
    (1) Law enforcement;
    (2) Servicing aids to navigation; or
    (3) Surveying, maintaining, or improving waters within the RNA.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor,
remain or drift at any time more than 100 feet from any river bank
within the RNA without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), or
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.

    (2) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in
any manner as to impede safe passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area.

    Dated: June 11, 2019.
Paul F. Thomas,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-13932 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 39863-39864] [FR Doc No: 2011-16960]

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

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: RP11-2214-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing

per 154.204: QEP 37657-6 Amendment to Negotiated Rate Agreement Filing

to be effective 7/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 06/27/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110627-5048.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2215-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per

154.204: Correction to tariff (KMIGT IT K end date) to be effective 6/

28/2011.

    Filed Date: 06/27/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110627-5080.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2216-000.

    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.

    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per

154.204: Statement of Negotiated Rates to be effective 7/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 06/28/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110628-5000.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2217-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per

154.204: DTI--June 28, 2011 Nonconforming Service Agreements to be

effective 7/28/2011.

    Filed Date: 06/28/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110628-5079.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2218-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing

per 154.204: Enerquest 34686-24 Amendment to Negotiated Rate Agreement

Filing to be effective 7/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 06/28/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110628-5106.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2219-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing

per 154.204: ONEOK 34951-80 Amendment to Negotiated Rate Agreement

Filing to be effective 7/1/2011 under RP11-2219 Filing Type: 570

    Filed Date: 06/29/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110629-5034.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above

proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment

date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket

related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the

same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to

make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the

Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,

interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline

need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an

intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the

intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and

14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the

Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the

above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's

Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link

on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification

when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance

with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 29, 2011.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-16960 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P