Statistical analysis of the representativeness of the watersheds
selected for monitoring:  The Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program
identified 1172 watersheds that were in the upper 80th percentile of
potential vulnerability to atrazine runoff, and selected a
representative pool of 40 subwatersheds for monitoring.   EPA has asked
the Panel to consider the appropriateness of identification of the pool
of potentially vulnerable watersheds and selection of the representative
monitored subwatersheds (Charge Question # 6).  The enclosed document
statically assesses the characteristics of the watersheds (WARP scores,
atrazine use, and other characteristics that render a watershed
vulnerable to potential atrazine runoff), and concludes that the sample
size of 40 is representative of the 1,172 most vulnerable watersheds.


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11689-11690]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 11a-3; SEC File No. 270-321; OMB Control No. 3235-0358.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-3520], the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 11(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') [15
U.S.C. 80a-11(a)] provides that it is unlawful for a registered open-
end investment company (``fund'') or its underwriter to make an offer
to the fund's shareholders or the shareholders of any other fund to
exchange the fund's securities for securities of the same or another
fund on any basis other than the relative net asset values (``NAVs'')
of the respective securities to be exchanged, ``unless the terms of the
offer have first been submitted to and approved by the Commission or
are in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may
have prescribed in respect of such offers.'' Section 11(a) was designed
to prevent ``switching,'' the practice of inducing shareholders of one
fund to exchange their shares for the shares of another fund for the
purpose of exacting additional sales charges.
    Rule 11a-3 under the Act [17 CFR 270.11a-3] is an exemptive rule
that permits open-end investment companies (``funds''), other than
insurance company separate accounts, and funds' principal underwriters,
to make certain exchange offers to fund shareholders and shareholders
of other funds in the same group of investment companies. The rule
requires a fund, among other things, (i) to disclose in its prospectus
and advertising literature the amount of any administrative or
redemption fee imposed on an exchange transaction, (ii) if the fund
imposes an administrative fee on exchange transactions, other than a
nominal one, to maintain and preserve records with respect to the
actual costs incurred in connection with exchanges for at least six
years, and (iii) give the fund's shareholders a sixty day notice of a
termination of an exchange offer or any material amendment to the terms
of an exchange offer (unless the only material effect of an amendment
is to reduce or eliminate an administrative fee, sales load or
redemption fee payable at the time of an exchange).
    The rule's requirements are designed to protect investors against
abuses associated with exchange offers, provide fund shareholders with
information necessary to evaluate exchange offers and certain material
changes in the terms of exchange offers, and enable the Commission
staff to monitor funds' use of administrative fees charged in
connection with exchange transactions.
    There are approximately 2,300 active open-end funds registered with
the Commission as of December 31, 2005. The staff estimates that 25
percent of these funds impose a non-nominal administrative fee on
exchange transactions. The staff estimates that the recordkeeping
requirement of the rule requires approximately 1 hour annually of
clerical time (at an estimated $23 per hour) \1\ per fund, for a total
of 575 hours for all funds (at a total annual cost of $13,225).\2\ The
staff estimates that 25 percent of the 2300 funds terminate an exchange
offer or make a material change to the terms once each year, and that
the notice requirement of the rule requires approximately 1 hour of
professional time (at an estimated $81 per hour) and 2 hours of
clerical time (at an estimated $23 per hour) per fund, for a total of
approximately 1,725 hours for all funds to comply with the notice
requirement (at a total annual cost of $73,025).\3\ The recordkeeping
and notice requirements impose a total burden of 2,300 hours on all
funds (at a total annual cost of $86,250).\4\ The burdens associated
with the disclosure requirement of the rule are accounted for in the
burdens associated with the Form N-1A registration statement for funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All hourly rates are derived from the average annual
salaries reported for employees outside of New York City in
Securities Industry Association, Management and Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry (2003) and Securities Industry
Association, Office Salaries in the Securities Industry (2003), and
have been adjusted upwards through established formulas to reflect
overhead and the increase in salaries since the report was
published.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (2,300
funds x 0.25% = 575 funds); (575 x 1 (clerical hour) = 575 clerical
hours); (575 x $23 = $13,225 total annual cost for recordkeeping
requirement).
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (2,300
(funds) x 0.25% = 575 funds); (575 x 1 (professional hour) = 575
total professional hours); (575 (funds) x 2 (clerical hours) = 1,150
total clerical hours); (575 (professional hours) + 1,150 (clerical
hours) = 1,725 total hours); (575 (professional hours) x $81 =
$46,575 total professional cost); (1,150 (clerical hours) x $23 =
$26,450 clerical cost); ($46,575 + $26,450 = $73,025 total annual
cost).
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1,725
(notice hours) + 575 (recordkeeping hours) = 2,300 total hours);
($73,025 (notice costs) + $13,225 (recordkeeping costs) = $86,250
total annual costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden[s]
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.

    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: February 28, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3281 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22378]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08148]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0055; FRL-10008-28-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
comment period for a proposed rule published March 23, 2020. On March
23, 2020, EPA proposed to remove the air pollution nuisance rule from
the Ohio State Implementation Plan using the Clean Air Act error
correction provision. In response to a request from a member of the
public, EPA is extending the comment period for 30 days.

DATES: The comment period is extended to May 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2020-0055, to: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional instructions to
comment can be found in the notice of proposed rulemaking published
March 23, 2020 (85 FR 16309).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 14, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-08148 Filed 4-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 65)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18229-18230]
[DOCID:fr03ap08-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2008-0256; FRL-8549-1]

Virginia: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Virginia has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to
Virginia. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule.
EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because
we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments
that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in
the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written
comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by May 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: Thomas UyBarreta<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. First Class or Overnight Mail: Thomas UyBarreta, Mailcode 3WC21,
RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Thomas
UyBarreta, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas UyBarreta at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 18, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
 [FR Doc. E8-6675 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47235-47237]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0475; Directorate Identifier 13-NE-18-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain

General Electric Company (GE) model GEnx-2B67 and GEnx-2B67B turbofan
engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the original equipment
manufacturer's disclosure that certain critical rotating life-limited
parts (LLPs) used in Boeing 747-8 flight tests had consumed more cyclic
life than they would have in revenue flight cycles. These parts were
then installed into engines and introduced into revenue service without
adjustment to remaining cyclic life. This proposed AD would require a
one-time adjustment to the cycle counts of those LLPs to account for
the additional low cycle fatigue (LCF) life consumed during flight
tests. We are proposing this AD to prevent the failure of critical
rotating LLPs, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, One Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0475;
Directorate Identifier 13-NE-18-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for certain GE model GEnx-2B67 and
GEnx-2B67B turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by GE's
disclosure that certain critical rotating LLPs used in Boeing 747-8
flight tests had consumed more cyclic life than they would have in
revenue flight cycles. This additional life usage was due to multiple
changes in the engine rotor speed and thermal environment that are not
performed in a typical revenue service flight. These parts were then
installed into engines and introduced into revenue service without
adjustment to remaining cyclic life. This proposed AD would require a
one-time adjustment to the cycle counts of those LLPs to account for
the additional LCF life consumed. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in the failure of critical rotating LLPs, uncontained
engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. 72-0116, Revision 1, dated
April 23, 2013. The SB lists each affected critical rotating LLP by
part number and serial number and prescribes the exact number of cycles
to add to the cycle count for each affected LLP as a one-time
adjustment. The list is extensive.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require a one-time adjustment to the cycle
counts of certain critical rotating LLPs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1
hour per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per hour. The prorated cost of required parts would be about
$50,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $200,340.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 (AD):

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0475; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NE-18-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 4, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain serial number General Electric
Company (GE) model GEnx-2B67 and GEnx-2B67B turbofan engines. The
affected GEnx-2B serial numbers are: 959-102 through 959-104; 959-
107; 959-110 through 959-111; 959-113 through 959-118; 959-121; 959-
124 through 959-133; 959-159 through 959-161; 959-164; 959-176; and
959-191.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by GE's report that certain critical
rotating life-limited parts (LLPs) used in Boeing 747-8 flight tests
had consumed more cyclic life than they would have in revenue
service flights. These parts were then installed into engines and
introduced into revenue service without adjustment to remaining
cyclic life. We are issuing this AD to prevent the failure of
critical rotating LLPs, uncontained engine failure, and damage to
the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Adjust the Cycle Counts of Certain Critical Rotating LLPs

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a
one-time adjustment to the cycle count of each part identified in
paragraph 4, Appendix A, of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. 72-0116,
Revision 1, dated April 23, 2013.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jason Yang,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to GE SB No. 72-0116, Revision 1, dated April 23, 2013
for related information.
    (3) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, One Neumann
Way, Cincinnati, OH; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 25, 2013.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-18794 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87813-87815]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0935]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME
and Portsmouth, NH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area (RNA) on the Piscataqua River near the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Kittery, ME between Henderson Point Light on Seavey Island
and the Memorial Bridge. This RNA establishes speed restrictions to
eliminate vessel wake which could endanger the lives of divers and
support crews working at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The speed
restrictions apply to all vessels transiting the regulated area unless
authorized by the First Coast Guard District Commander or the Captain
of the Port (COTP), Sector Northern New England.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from December 6,
2016 through June 30, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from November 14, 2016, through December 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0935 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management, First Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also call or email Chief Petty
Officer Chris Bains, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Northern New England; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard was notified of the need for this rule on September 26,
2016. This late notice did not give the Coast Guard enough time to
publish a NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the
rule is necessary. Delaying implementation of this rule would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to provide for the safety of divers and
workers completing ship construction at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Without the rule, wake from passing vessels could cause the ship to
move erratically and unexpectedly, severely injuring divers and support
crews.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. For reasons stated in
the preceding paragraph, delaying the implementation of this rule would
be impracticable.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1231.
    As part of a ship construction project at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, divers will be in the water from November 14, 2016, through
June 30, 2016. The Coast Guard First District Commander has determined
that unexpected and uncontrolled movement of the vessel and associated
equipment due to a wake puts the divers and their support crews at
significant risk for serious injury or death. In order to ensure the
safety of workers during the construction period, the Coast Guard is
establishing an RNA to limit the speed, thus wake, of all vessels
operating near the shipyard.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule places speed restrictions on all vessels transiting the
navigable waters of the Piscataqua River, Kittery, ME near the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard between Henderson Point Light on Seavey
Island and the Memorial Bridge from 12:01 a.m. on November 14, 2016,
through 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2017. The vessels operating within the
RNA are subject to a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed limit. More specifically,
vessels may not produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than
five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway.
    The COTP Sector Northern New England will cause notice of
enforcement or suspension of enforcement of this regulated navigation
area to be made by all appropriate means in order to affect the widest
distribution among the affected segments of the public. Such means of
notification will include Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice
to Mariners. In addition, COTP Sector Northern New England maintains a
telephone line that is staffed at all times. The public can obtain
information concerning enforcement of the RNA by contacting the Sector
Northern New England Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the RNA. The public impact of
this rule will be minimal as the temporary speed restrictions only
apply to a small designated area of the Piscataqua River, causing
minimal delay to a vessel's transit.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
RNA may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A.
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves an RNA lasting 229 days that will limit vessel speed on
the Piscataqua River in the vicinity of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
while construction work is being completed. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0935 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0935   Regulated Navigation Area; Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Kittery, ME and Portsmouth, NH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area
(RNA): All navigable waters on the Piscataqua River, Kittery, ME and
Portsmouth, NH near Portsmouth Naval Shipyard from a line drawn between
Henderson Point Light ``10'' (LLNR 8375) at 43[deg]04'29.3'' N.,
070[deg]44'10.2'' W. on Seavey Island and Pierce Island Range Front
Light (LLNR 8355) at 43[deg]04'25.4'' N., 070[deg]44'25.2'' W. to the
Memorial Bridge at 43[deg]04'46.8'' N., 070[deg]45'09.6'' W.
    (b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.10, 165.11 and 165.13 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations, vessel movement
within the RNA is subject to a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed limit. No vessel
may produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5)
knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain
steerageway.
    (3) All vessels operating within the RNA must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector
Northern New England or his on-scene representative. The ``on-scene
representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on his
behalf. The on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel,
state marine patrol vessel, another other designated

craft, or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM
radio or loudhailer. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary or Naval
Harbor Security Patrol may be present to inform vessel operators of
this regulation.
    (4) All other relevant regulations, including but not limited to
the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR chapter I, subchapter E), remain in
effect within the RNA and must be strictly followed at all times.
    (c) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced 24 hours a
day from November 14, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
    (d) Notifications. Violations of this section may be reported to
the COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: November 7, 2016.
S.D. Poulin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-29260 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42611-42614]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0669; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01238-T;
Amendment 39-22459; AD 2023-12-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-10-
13, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223, -321, -322, and -
323 airplanes. AD 2006-10-13 required repetitive inspections of the
firewall of the lower aft pylon fairing (LAPF), and corrective actions
if necessary. AD 2006-10-13 also provided an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted by

the design of an updated LAPF, the installation of which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspection required by AD 2006-
10-13. This AD continues to require the actions specified in AD 2006-
10-13, provides new optional terminating actions, and changes the
applicability to exclude certain airplanes; as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by
reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 7, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 7,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0669; 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, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), 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.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For the material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material 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 in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0669.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-
231-3667; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-10-13, Amendment 39-14597 (71 FR
28250, May 16, 2006) (AD 2006-10-13). AD 2006-10-13 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A330-223, -321, -322, and -323 airplanes. AD 2006-10-
13 required repetitive inspections of the firewall of the LAPF, and
corrective actions if necessary. AD 2006-10-13 also provided an
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The FAA
issued AD 2006-10-13 to address cracking of the LAPF firewall, which
could reduce the effectiveness of the firewall and result in an
uncontrolled engine fire.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2023 (88 FR
21540). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0190, dated September 14,
2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0190) (also referred to as
the MCAI). The MCAI states that since Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale
de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) France AD F-2004-028 R2 was issued, Airbus
designed an updated LAPF, the installation of which also constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by DGAC
France AD F-2004-028 R2. EASA AD 2022-0190 retains the requirements of
DGAC France AD F-2004-028 R2, and includes reference to an additional
optional terminating action modification. EASA AD 2022-0190 also
excludes airplanes on which the optional terminating action was
embodied in production from its applicability.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0669.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions
specified in AD 2006-10-13, provide new optional terminating actions,
and change the applicability to exclude certain airplanes, as specified
in EASA AD 2022-0190. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of
the LAPF firewall, which could reduce the effectiveness of the firewall
and result in an uncontrolled engine fire.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from The Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this
AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will
increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0190 specifies procedures for repetitively inspecting
each LAPF firewall for cracks, and performing corrective actions,
including stop-drilling the crack and applying sealants, and repairing
the LAPF firewall. EASA AD 2022-0190 also specifies terminating actions
for the repetitive inspections, including modifying and reidentifying
the LAPF or replacing the LAPF with an LAPF having part number 72A100-
713. This material 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 41 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.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2006-10-13...  7 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $595         $24,395
                                         hour = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,190.        $120,000         $121,190
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595....        $120,000         $120,595
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-10-13, Amendment 39-14597
(71 FR 28250, May 16, 2006); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-12-01 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22459; Docket No. FAA-2023-0669;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01238-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 7, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2006-10-13, Amendment 39-14597 (71 FR 28250,
May 16, 2006) (AD 2006-10-13).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A330-223, A330-321, A330-
322, and A330-323 airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-
0190, dated September 14, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0190).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the lower aft
pylon fairing (LAPF) firewall, and by the development of an optional
terminating replacement. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this
cracking, which could reduce the effectiveness of the firewall and
result in an uncontrolled engine fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0190.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0190

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0190 refers to ``28 February 2004 [the
effective date of DGAC France AD F-2004-028 at original issue],''
this AD requires using June 20, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-
10-13).
    (2) For any airplane on which a crack has been found and a stop-
drill of the crack and sealant application has not been done as
specified in paragraph (4.1) of EASA AD 2022-0190 as of the
effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (4.1) of
EASA AD 2022-0190.
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0190 specifies a crack
length, replace the text ``up to 30.48 mm'' with ``less than or
equal to 30.48 mm (1.2 inches).''
    (4) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0190.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0190
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the International Validation Branch,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)
of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office. (ii) AMOCs approved
previously for AD 2006-10-13 in FAA Letters ANM-116-17-235 and AIR-
676-20-117 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of
EASA AD 2022-0190 that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (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, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tim Dowling,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(l) 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0190,
dated September 14, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0190, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material 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 material 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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 7, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14002 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42562-42563]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-13-000]

Floridian Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC; Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Floridian Natural Gas Storage Project

July 11, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the natural gas facilities proposed by the Floridian Natural
Gas Storage Company, LLC (FGS) under the above-referenced docket. FGS's
proposed Floridian Natural Gas Storage Project (Project) would be
located approximately two miles north of the unincorporated
municipality of Indiantown in Martin County, Florida.
    The Final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that the
proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as
recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are cooperating agencies
for the development of this EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction
by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis.
    The general purpose of the proposed Project is to respond to the
growing demand for natural gas and natural gas infrastructure in the
United States, and, more specifically, in Florida. The Project would
enhance access to additional, competitively-priced supplies of natural
gas by providing liquefaction, storage, and vaporization services to
customers in Florida and the southeastern United States.
    The Final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of
construction and operation of the facilities listed below. FGS proposes
to construct and operate:
     An approximately 53.1 acre liquefied natural gas storage
facility;
     An approximately 4-mile-long, 12-inch-diameter receiving
pipeline to interconnect with and receive natural gas from the
Gulfstream and/or Florida Power & Light (FPL) lateral pipelines;
     An approximately 4-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter sendout
pipeline that would parallel the 12-inch pipeline and

interconnect with and deliver natural gas from the storage facility to
the Gulfstream and the FPL lateral pipelines;
     Interconnection points with the Gulfstream pipeline at
milepost (MP) 4.18 and with the FPL lateral at MP 4.05; and
     A metering and regulating station.
    FGS proposes to have the facilities installed and operational
within 36 months of commencing construction; however, based on market
conditions at the time of construction, the storage facility
construction may be separated into two phases.
    The Final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    CD-ROM copies of the Final EIS have been mailed to federal, state,
and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and affected
landowners who requested a copy of the Final EIS or provided comments
during scoping; libraries and newspapers in the Project area; and
parties to this proceeding. Hard copy versions of the Final EIS were
mailed to those specifically requesting them. A limited number of hard
copies and CD-ROMs are available from the Public Reference Room
identified above.
    In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action
may be made until 30 days after the EPA publishes a notice of
availability of a Final EIS.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary
link,'' select ``General Search'' and enter the project docket number
excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP08-13) in the ``Docket
Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or TTY (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides
access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such
as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.
    It is requested that you communicate the foregoing information
concerning the proposed work to any persons known by you to be
interested and not being known to this office, who did not receive a
copy of this notice.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16705 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3826 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 Air and Radiation/ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 2. OMB control number b. x None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ OMB Comment Number 2060 0530 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. x New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G 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. x 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 X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. x Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating ( 40 CFR Part 63, subpart PPPP) ( Final Rule).

8. Agency form number( s) 2044.02 9. Keywords: Environmental Protection, Air Pollution, Plastic Parts, Products Surface Coating 10. Abstract Each owner or operator of a source affected by the final standards will be required to submit an initial notification that the source is subject to the standard. Each respondent would submit semiannual compliance reports. Additional records and notifications would depend on how the owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards. The owner or operator of a plastic parts and products surface coating operation that is subject to these final standards will be required to control hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) by either limiting the HAP content of materials used in the coating operations ( compliant material option), demonstrating that the source wide HAP emissions meet the emission limit ( emission rate without add on controls option), or by using an emission capture and control system to demonstrate that the source wide emissions meet the emission limitation ( emission rate with add on controls option).

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. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X 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 203 b. Total annual responses 203 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0% % c. Total hours requested 42,553 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 42,533 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 42,533 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 44.0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 1 c. Total annualized cost requested 45.0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 45.0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 45.0 2. Adjustment _ 0 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. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) one time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Kim Teal, Us. EPA, MD 13 Phone: ( 919) 541 5580 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 Margo T. Oge, Director Office of Transportation and Air Quality Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Doreen Sterling, Acting Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: March 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16051-16053]
[DOCID:fr30mr06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0122; FRL-8050-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Iowa;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making a revision to the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) for the purpose of giving the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) full regulatory responsibility for EPA-issued
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits. IDNR
demonstrated state legislative authority to take responsibility for the
permits, and demonstrated that resources are available to accomplish
full regulatory responsibility.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 30, 2006, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 1, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0122, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Heather
Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0122. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is Being Addressed in This Document?
What Action is EPA Taking?

What is Being Addressed in This Document?

    EPA is making a revision to the CFR for the purpose of giving the
IDNR full regulatory responsibility for EPA-issued PSD permits.
    On April 22, 1987, EPA approved Iowa's rules for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality (a permit program for
major new and modified sources of air pollution proposing to locate in
areas of the state which are achieving the ambient air quality
standards). One issue in that rulemaking addressed how the PSD permits
previously issued by EPA would be administered. At that time, IDNR
determined that it did not have authority to implement the PSD program.
EPA approved the Iowa program, which incorporated the federal PSD rules
in 40 CFR 52.21, by reference. However, EPA stated in 40 CFR 52.833
that its approval did not extend to sources holding federal PSD permits
and EPA retained authority to administer the program for those permits
for sources subject to permits previously issued by EPA. IDNR has since
reconsidered its authority and has determined that it does have
authority to implement EPA permits.
    IDNR demonstrated state legal authority to take responsibility for
the permits in a letter to EPA Region 7 dated May 23, 2003. IDNR's
authority to take responsibility for EPA-issued permits can be found in
the Iowa Administrative Code, Section 567, ``Environmental Protection
Commission'', Chapter 22.4, ``Special requirements for major stationary
sources located in areas designated attainment or unclassified (PSD).''
In the same letter, IDNR demonstrated that resources are available to
assume regulatory responsibility for EPA-issued permits. The IDNR
Construction Permit Section of the Air Quality Bureau is responsible
for reviewing and issuing air construction permits and is fully staffed
by permit review engineers. The air dispersion modeling related to
construction permits is accomplished by environmental specialists
located in the Program Development Section of the Air Quality Bureau.
Four ambient air monitoring staff are available for questions and
issues related to pre-application or post-construction ambient air
monitoring for PSD permits.
    A public hearing with regard to this action was held by the state.
Two comments were received from industry representatives which
supported the action.
    With this action, the regulatory text in 52.833 will be revised to
reflect that IDNR has been given full regulatory responsibility for
EPA-issued PSD permits. The language stating ``sources with permits
issued by EPA prior to the effective date of the state's rules;'' will
be deleted.

What Action is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving this revision submitted by Iowa and is revising 40
CFR 52.833 to give the Iowa Department of Natural Resources regulatory
responsibility for EPA-issued Prevention of Significant Deterioration
permits. IDNR demonstrated legal authority to take responsibility for
the permits, and demonstrated that resources are available to
accomplish full regulatory responsibility. We do not anticipate any
adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on
part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

Statutory Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 30, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 13, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. Section 52.833 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.833  Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air
Act are met, except for sources seeking permits to locate on Indian
lands in the state of Iowa; and certain sources affected by the stack
height rules described in a letter from Iowa dated April 22, 1987.
    (b) Regulations for preventing significant deterioration of air
quality. The provisions of Sec.  52.21 except paragraph (a)(1) are
hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable State plan for
the State of Iowa for sources wishing to locate on Indian lands; and
certain sources as identified in Iowa's April 22, 1987, letter.

[FR Doc. 06-3036 Filed 3-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24253-24254]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance
Former Willmar Municipal Airport, Willmar, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to authorize the release of 90 acres of airport property at
the former Willmar Municipal Airport, Willmar, MN. The land will be
used for an industrial park. The FAA issued a Categorical Exclusion on
February 12, 2012.
    The City of Willmar built a new airport in 2006, therefore the
acreage being released is not needed for aeronautical use. The 90 acres
are on the East side of the former Willmar Municipal Airport, more
specifically East of County Road 5 and north of Willmar Avenue SW. The
acreage was originally acquired with City of Willmar funds. There are
no impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to dispose of the
property. The fair market value of this land is $1,700,000 and will be
applied to the new Willmar Municipal Airport for operating and
maintaining the airport and/or

improvements. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to
financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor
a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Ms. Nancy M. Nistler, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room
102, Minneapolis, MN 55450-2706. Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX
Number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be
reviewed at this same location or at the Willmar City Offices, 333 6th
Street SW., Willmar, MN 56201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy M. Nistler, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 6020 28th
Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450-2706. Telephone Number
(612) 253-4638/FAX Number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at this same location or at the Willmar City
Offices, 333 6th Street SW., Willmar, MN 56201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the
subject airport property to be released at the former Willmar Municipal
Airport in Willmar, Minnesota and described as that part of the West
Half and also that part of Government Lot 3 and also that part of the
southwest Quarter of the southeast Quarter, all located in Section 16,
Township 119 North, Range 35 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,
Willmar Township, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, described as follows:
    Beginning at the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of said
Section 16;
    Thence on a geodetic bearing of north 89 degrees 36 minutes 20
seconds west, along the south line of said Section 16, a distance of
2547.51 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 00 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds west
a distance of 816.83 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 44 degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds east
a distance of 139.98 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 00 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds west
a distance of 100.02 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 45 degrees 22 minutes 03 seconds west
a distance of 142.85 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 00 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds west
a distance of 750.79 feet;
    Thence northerly, a distance of 103.01 feet, along a curve, which
is concave to the east, having a radius of 11359.16 feet, a central
angle of 0 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds, and a chord bearing of north
00 degrees 41 minutes 26 seconds west;
    Thence on a bearing of north 00 degrees 10 minutes 43 seconds west
a distance of 100.01 feet;
    Thence northerly, a distance of 118.08 feet, along a curve, which
is concave to the east, having a radius of 11359.16 feet, a central
angle of 0 degrees 35 minutes 44 seconds, and a chord bearing of north
00 degrees 22 minutes 17 seconds east;
    Thence on a bearing of north 00 degrees 40 minutes 09 seconds east
a distance of 1737.17 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of south 74 degrees 37 minutes 43 seconds east
a distance of 317.55 feet;
    Thence easterly, a distance of 95.33 feet, along a curve, which is
concave to the north, having a radius of 150.00 feet, a central angle
of 36 degrees 24 minutes 52 seconds, and a chord bearing of north 87
degrees 09 minutes 52 seconds east;
    Thence on a bearing of north 68 degrees 57 minutes 26 seconds east
a distance of 941.53 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 85 degrees 52 minutes 26 seconds east
a distance of 75.02 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of south 68 degrees 17 minutes 05 seconds east
a distance of 81.23 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of south 86 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds east
a distance of 47.38 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of north 63 degrees 25 minutes 42 seconds east
a distance of 15.73 feet to the southerly right of way boundary line of
the state highway;
    Thence on a bearing of south 69 degrees 56 minutes 49 minutes east,
along the southerly right of way boundary line of the state highway, a
distance of 37.90 feet to the westerly line of 28th Street SW., as
shown on the record plat entitled Willmar Industrial Park Second
Addition, on file in the office of the Kandiyohi County Recorder;
    Thence on a bearing of south 20 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west,
along the westerly line of said 28th Street SW., a distance of 662.91
feet;
    Thence southeasterly, along the northwesterly line of said 28th
Street SW., a distance of 160.23 feet, along a curve which is concave
to the northwest, having a radius of 319.44 feet, a central angle of 28
degrees 44 minutes 18 seconds, and a chord bearing of south 34 degrees
27 minutes 34 seconds west;
    Thence on a bearing of south 48 degrees 49 minutes 43 seconds west,
along the northwesterly line of said 28th Street SW., a distance of
1197.80 feet;
    Thence southwesterly, along the northwesterly line of said 28th
Street SW., a distance of 336.70 feet, along a curve which is concave
to the southeast, having a radius of 397.94 feet, a central angle of 48
degrees 28 minutes 44 seconds, and a chord bearing of south 24 degrees
35 minutes 18 seconds west;
    Thence on a bearing of south 89 degrees 39 minutes 01 seconds east
a distance of 5.09 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of south 00 degrees 19 minutes 46 seconds west,
a distance of 614.84 feet;
    Thence on bearing of south 45 degrees 00 minutes 52 seconds east a
distance of 533.66 feet to the north line of the south half of the
southwest Quarter of said Section 16;
    Thence on a bearing of south 89 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east,
along the north line of the south Half of the southwest Quarter of said
Section 16, a distance of 842.12 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of south 00 degrees 21 minutes 54 seconds west
a distance of 302.32 feet;
    Thence on a bearing of south 45 degrees 18 minutes 52 seconds east
a distance of 1293.75 feet;
    Thence southeasterly, a distance of 193.28 feet, along a curve
which is concave to the northeast, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a
central angle of 44 degrees 17 minutes 51 seconds and a chord bearing
of south 67 degrees 27 minutes 47 seconds east;
    Thence on a bearing of south 89 degrees 36 minutes 42 seconds east
a distance of 128.06 feet;
    Thence on bearing of south 00 degrees 13 minutes 28 seconds east a
distance of 46.45 feet to the south line of said Section 16;
    Thence on a bearing of north 89 degrees 36 minutes 24 seconds west,
along the south line of said Section 16, a distance of 53.20 feet to
the point of beginning.

    Issued in Minneapolis, MN, on April 3, 2012.
Steven J. Obenauer,
Manager, Minneapolis Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-9735 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 89579]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0968]

Safety Zone; San Francisco New Year's Eve Fireworks; San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay near the San Francisco Ferry building
for the San Francisco New Year's Eve Fireworks Display. The safety zone
will be enforced December 31, 2023, into January 1, 2024. This action
is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. During the enforcement
period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone, unless authorized
by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM) or other Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agencies.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced for the
location described in Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191, Item number 24, from
noon on December 31, 2023, through 12:45 a.m. on January 1, 2024, or as
announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant William Harris,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 for the event and location listed in
Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191, Item number 24, for the San Francisco New
Year's Eve Firework Display from noon on December 31, 2023, through
12:45 a.m. on January 1, 2024. The Coast Guard will enforce a 100-foot
safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, standby,
transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location
to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display.
On December 31, 2023, the fireworks barge will be loaded with
pyrotechnics at Pier 64, Wharf 4 in San Francisco, CA from
approximately noon until approximately 6 p.m. The fireworks barge will
remain on standby at the load location until their transit to the
display location. From 10:45 to 11:15 p.m. on December 31, 2023, the
loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 64, Wharf 4 to the launch
site near the San Francisco Ferry Building in approximate position
37[deg]47'45'' N, 122[deg]23'15'' W (NAD 83), where they will remain
until the conclusion of the fireworks display. At approximately 11:45
p.m. on December 31, 2023, 15-minutes prior to the fireworks display,
the safety zone will expand to encompass all navigable waters, from
surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points
1,000 feet out from the fireworks barge. The fireworks barge will be
near the San Francisco Ferry Building in San Francisco, CA in
approximate position 37[deg]47'45'' N, 122[deg]23'15'' W (NAD 83) as
set forth in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 24. The safety zone
will be enforced until 12:45 a.m. on January 1, 2024, or as announced
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard plans to provide notification of the safety zone and its
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within the safety zone during all applicable effective dates
and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official
patrol, defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on
scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area.
Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or
direction issued by the PATCOM or Official Patrol shall obey the order
or direction. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow
the transit of commercial vessels through the regulated areas when it
is safe to do so.
    If the COTP determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: December 22, 2023.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-28713 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Feedback on WA’s Changes to the Marine Cu and Marine Cyanide Criteria

1.	COMMENTS RECEIVED SPECIFIC TO THE CRITERIA

WQS SUBMITTED TO EPA ON JULY 23, 2003: revised marine chronic cyanide
criteria for marine waters outside of Puget Sound.

a.	PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR 2003 REVISIONS: No comments on the
revised chronic marine cyanide criterion that applies to the waters
outside of Puget Sound.

WQS SUBMITTED TO EPA ON DECEMBER 5, 1997:

WA submitted revised marine cyanide criteria: an acute criterion for
waters outside of Puget Sound and site specific acute and chronic
criteria for Puget Sound.

WA also submitted revised marine copper criteria.

a.	PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR 1997 REVISIONS:

People for Puget Sound (local NGO): raised concerns about the scientific
process by which the site specific criteria for cyanide were calculated.
In response to comments, State explained the method for recalculating
the marine cyanide criteria (substituting local west coast crab species
for an exclusively east coast species of crab), and noted that the
methodology was endorsed by EPA scientists who created aquatic life
methodology.

Environmental Geoscience (???) Stated that the only safe criterion for
cyanide is the elimination of this discharge to the environment. State
responded that they disagreed, and noted that toxicity studies have
documented effects level for cyanide are above zero.