[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41145-41147]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16539]

========================================================================
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. 79, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0446; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-077-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant), and CL-
215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report that during a routine inspection, corrosion was discovered on
the lower bearing of the rudder upper torque tube. This proposed AD
would require applying grease to the bearing; doing a general visual
inspection of the expelled old grease for any contaminants, metal wear,
and indication of corrosion, and replacing the bearing if necessary;
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the rudder spring tab operational test and a check of the
rudder spring tab operation into the daily inspection. We are proposing
this AD to prevent corroded bearings, which could result in a partial
or total loss of axial support.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0446; 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
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0446;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-077-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 based on 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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-08, dated March 12, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-
215T Variant), and CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    During a routine inspection, corrosion was discovered on the
Rudder Upper Torque Tube Lower bearing, part number (P/N) DAT48-64A.
Corroded bearings may eventually result in a partial or total loss
of axial support. As such, Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin
(SB) 215-A3171 Rev. 1 and SB 215-A4452 Rev. 1, which provide
instructions to refresh the lubrication in the bearing in order to
inspect for corrosion and/or contaminants in the existing grease.
These SBs will also incorporate an operational check to the 50 hour
maintenance scheduled tasks, and a test of the Rudder Spring Tab
operation into the Daily inspection or the aircrew Preflight Check.

    Required actions include applying grease to the bearing, doing a
general visual inspection of the expelled old grease for any
contaminants, metal wear, and indication of corrosion, and replacing
the bearing if necessary; revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate the rudder spring tab
operational test; and revising the maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate a check of the rudder spring tab
operation into the daily inspection.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0446.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 215-A3171, Revision 1,
dated January 25, 2012; and Service Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1,
dated January 3,

2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the other NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished
using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier's TCCA Design
Approval Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would be negligible.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $850, or $170 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0446; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-077-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 29, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated
in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes, serial
numbers 1056 through 1125 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers
2001 through 2990 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by report that during a routine inspection,
corrosion was discovered on the lower bearing of the rudder upper
torque tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent corroded bearings,
which could result in a partial or total loss of axial support.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Lubrication of the Rudder Upper Torque Tube Bearing

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, apply
grease to the bearing, and do a general visual inspection of the
expelled old grease for any contaminants (i.e. ashes, dust, and
algae), metal wear, and indication of corrosion, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-
A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11
(CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-
A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-
415 Variant) airplanes). If any contaminants (i.e., ashes, dust, and
algae), metal wear, or indication of corrosion are found, before
further flight, replace the bearing with a new bearing, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 215-A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for
Model CL- 215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier
Service Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for
Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes). Repeat the
inspection, thereafter, before and after each fire season or at
intervals not to exceed 6 months, whichever occurs first.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  It is suggested that
paragraph (g) of this AD be carried out in conjunction with AD 2009-
05-04, Amendment 39-15828 (74 FR 8860, February 27, 2009), as the
task and task intervals are in the same general area.

(h) Operational Test

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
rudder spring tab operational test, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-
A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11
(CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-
A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-
415 Variant) airplanes).

(i) Daily Maintenance Procedure Check

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a
check of the rudder spring tab operation into the daily inspection,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 215-A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for
Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier
Service Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for
Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).

(j) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishment of the maintenance or inspection program
revision required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-08, dated March 12,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0446.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 3, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16539 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80713-80718]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 123 and 233

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0517; FRL-10017-98-OW]
RIN 2040-AG09

Criminal Negligence Standard for State Clean Water Act 402 and
404 Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
requesting comment on proposed Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act)
regulations to clarify that state or tribal programs approved pursuant
to CWA Sections 402 and 404 are not required to include the same
criminal intent standard that is applicable to the EPA under Section
309 of the CWA. The proposed regulations will provide clarity to
states, tribes, regulated entities, and the public.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2020-0517, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for
this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received
by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at:
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA is offering one virtual public hearing so that interested
parties may also provide oral comments on the proposed rulemaking. For
more information on the virtual public hearing and to register to
attend, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/. Refer to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nizanna Bathersfield, Office of
Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division (Mail Code 4203M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
II. Public Participation
    A. Written Comments
    B. Virtual Public Hearing
III. Background
IV. Request for Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include States, U.S.
territories, and Indian Tribes that are authorized and/or seek
authorization to administer the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program or the CWA Section 404 dredged or fill permitting program. This
table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for
readers regarding entities that this action is likely to affect. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person identified in the preceding
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The phrase, ``State(s) and Tribe(s)'' will be used in this
document hereafter.

         Table I-1--Entities Potentially Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category            Examples of potentially affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government...........  EPA when conducting oversight of programs
                                authorized under CWA Sections 402 and
                                404 in states, tribes, and U.S.
                                territories.
State, Territorial, and        States, Tribes, and U.S. Territories \1\
 Indian Tribal Governments.     that are authorized or that seek
                                authorization to administer the CWA
                                Section 402 NPDES permitting program and/
                                or the CWA Section 404 dredged and fill
                                permitting program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA proposes to amend its requirements in 40 CFR 123.27 and 233.41
for criminal enforcement authorities to clarify that states and tribes
that are authorized to or that seek authorization to administer the CWA
Section 402 NPDES permitting program and/or the CWA Section 404 dredged
and fill permitting program are not required to establish the same
negligence standard that the CWA establishes for Federal criminal
enforcement actions. Rather, EPA may approve state or tribal programs
that allow for prosecution based on any negligence standard, including
gross negligence or recklessness, as opposed to requiring that a state
or tribe be able to establish criminal violations based on

simple or ordinary negligence. EPA interprets its current regulations
to allow for this approach and proposes to modify its regulations to
make its interpretation of the statute clearer. Because the relevant
CWA Section 402 regulatory provisions are similar \2\ to those in CWA
Section 404 and raise the same issues, EPA proposes to make similar
changes to the CWA Sections 402 and 404 permitting program regulations.
Refer to the BACKGROUND section below for a more detailed description
of the context and purpose for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The regulation at 40 CFR 123.27 includes a note that is
absent from 40 CFR 233.41. This note provides: ``[s]tates which
provide the criminal remedies based on ``criminal negligence,''
``gross negligence'' or strict liability satisfy the requirement of
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.'' See 40 CFR 123.27(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    The proposed amendment clarifies EPA's interpretation of the CWA
enforcement requirements applicable to authorized state and tribal
programs under CWA Section 402 and CWA Section 404. This action does
not establish new requirements but instead provides clarity for states
and tribes that have been approved to administer or are interested in
obtaining EPA approval to administer their own NPDES or dredged and
fill permitting program under the CWA. Therefore, the proposed
rulemaking would impose no incremental change to current requirements
that EPA measures as compliance costs or monetized benefits.
    EPA anticipates that states that already administer these CWA
programs will not need to make any changes to their legal authority to
conform with this regulatory change. Instead, these regulatory
clarifications will provide assurance to approved states that their
current criminal intent standards comport with EPA's interpretation of
the CWA criminal intent standard applicable to authorized state and
tribal CWA Sections 402 and 404 programs. Additionally, this
clarification will provide those states and tribes interested in
seeking approval to administer the CWA Sections 402 and 404 programs,
respectively, with clarity regarding the legal authorities required for
approval by EPA.

II. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-
0517, at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit: http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

B. Virtual Public Hearing

    EPA intends to hold a virtual public hearing on the proposed
rulemaking. EPA is deviating from its typical approach to public
hearings because the President has declared a national emergency.
Because of current CDC recommendations, as well as state and local
orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA
cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.
    EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon
publication of this document in the Federal Register. To register to
speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form
available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/ or contact Cortney Itle at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule
as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan
for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have three minutes to provide oral testimony.
Note that the testimony time may be adjusted depending on the number of
registered speakers. EPA encourages commenters to provide EPA with a
copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it
to Cortney Itle. EPA also recommends submitting the text of your oral
comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket. EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond
to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting
information submitted during the comment period will be considered with
the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented
at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing is
posted online at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/. While EPA expects the
hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or
contact Cortney Itle at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to determine if there are
any updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing updates. If you require the services of a
translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please
pre-register for the hearing with Cortney Itle and describe your needs
at least two weeks prior to the announced public hearing date. EPA may
not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.

III. Background

    The CWA provides that states and tribes seeking approval for a
permitting program under CWA Section 402 and CWA Section 404 must have
adequate authority ``[t]o abate violations of the permit or the permit
program, including civil and criminal penalties and other ways and
means of enforcement.'' 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(7) and 1344(h)(1)(G). These
provisions do not establish specific mens rea standards or penalties
for state and tribal programs and thus do not provide specific criteria
on which basis EPA could disapprove a program for lack of authority to
impose criminal sanctions. In contrast, CWA Section 309(c) specifically
provides EPA with enforcement authority to establish misdemeanor
criminal liability in Subsection (c)(1) and a range of penalties for
``[n]egligent violations'' of specified provisions, as well as felony
liability and a higher range of penalties for ``knowing violations'' of
the CWA in Subsection (c)(2). Beginning in 1999, three circuit courts
of appeal determined that criminal negligence under CWA Section
309(c)(1) is ``ordinary negligence'' rather than gross negligence or
any other negligence standard. U.S. v. Hanousek, 176 F.3d 1116, 1121
(9th Cir. 1999); U.S. v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir. 2005);
U.S. v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012). Though courts have
interpreted EPA's enforcement authority under CWA 309(c)(1) to
encompass violations committed with ordinary negligence, these courts
did not address

whether this provision implicates state or tribal programs implementing
CWA Sections 402 or 404.
    EPA's regulations currently provide that a state or tribal agency
administering a program under CWA Section 402 must provide for criminal
fines to be levied ``against any person who willfully or negligently
violates any applicable standards or limitations; any NPDES permit
condition; or any NPDES filing requirement.'' 40 CFR 123.27(a)(3)(ii).
Similarly, EPA's regulations currently provide that any state or tribal
agency administering a program under Section 404 of the CWA shall have
authority to seek criminal fines against any person who ``willfully or
with criminal negligence discharges dredged or fill material without a
required permit or violates any permit condition issued under section
404 . . .'' 40 CFR 233.41(a)(3)(ii). The regulations implementing both
statutory programs also provide that the ``burden of proof and degree
of knowledge or intent required under State law for establishing
violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, shall be no greater
than the burden of proof or degree of knowledge or intent EPA must bear
when it brings an action under the Act.'' 40 CFR 123.27(b)(2); 40 CFR
233.41(b)(2). Additionally, the implementing regulations for CWA
Section 402 include a note, not present in the CWA Section 404
implementing regulations, that states, ``[f]or example, this
requirement is not met if State law includes mental state as an element
of proof for civil violations'' 40 CFR 123.27(b)(2).
    On September 10, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
unpublished decision that granted in part and denied in part the Idaho
Conservation League's petition for review of EPA's approval of Idaho's
NPDES permitting program. Idaho Conservation League v. US EPA, no. 18-
72684 (September 10, 2020). Relying on the Ninth Circuit case law cited
above, which holds that EPA enforcement actions are subject to a simple
negligence standard, the court determined that EPA abused its
discretion in approving a mens rea standard of gross negligence because
it is ` ``greater than the burden of proof or degree of knowledge or
intent EPA must provide when it brings an action . . .' 40 CFR
123.27(b)(2).'' The court recognized that ``a state program need not
mirror the burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent EPA must
meet to bring an enforcement action,'' citing EPA's Consolidated Permit
Regulations, 45 FR. 33290, 33382 (May 19, 1980), but held that EPA's
current regulations at 40 CFR 123.27(b)(2) require a state plan to
employ a standard ``no greater than'' simple negligence, such as strict
liability or simple negligence. Slip op. at 3. Because the decision is
unpublished, it is not precedential except for as the law of the case.
See Ninth Cir. Rule 36-4.

Overview of This Proposal

    The CWA and its implementing regulations require that in order to
avoid EPA disapproval, States and tribes must have certain legal
authorities in place pertaining to permit issuance, and compliance and
enforcement, including criminal enforcement. EPA does not interpret the
CWA to require that states and tribes establish the same negligence
standard that the CWA establishes for Federal enforcement actions. The
current regulations describing the criminal intent standard applicable
to state and tribal programs at 40 CFR 233.41(a)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR
123.27(a)(3)(ii) do not clearly articulate EPA's interpretation of the
statute that it may approve state or tribal programs that allow for
prosecution based on any negligence standard, including those
negligence standards with a gross negligence mens rea requirement. This
proposal sets forth regulatory revisions that are consistent with this
interpretation.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework for EPA's Interpretation

    While EPA's own enforcement authority under CWA Section 309(c)(1),
33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(1), as interpreted by the courts, requires only proof
of ordinary negligence, that provision does not apply to state or
tribal programs. As noted above, the CWA requires that EPA ``shall
approve'' a state's application if it determines that the state has the
authority to ``abate violations of the permit or the permit program,
including civil and criminal penalties and other ways and means of
enforcement.'' 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(7); 1344(h)(1)(G). EPA has
consistently maintained that nothing in the text of CWA Sections 402 or
404 requires identical enforcement authority between states or tribes
and EPA. See NRDC v. U.S. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 175, 181 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
(upholding EPA's decision not to require state or tribal programs to
incorporate the maximum penalty amounts in CWA Section 309 as a
``reasonable accommodation'' of ``the competing objectives of
regulatory uniformity and state autonomy'') (citing Chevron U.S.A. v.
NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 865 (1984).
    In addressing the enforcement requirements for state programs,
Congress did not use the words ``all applicable,'' ``same,'' or any
phrase specific to any mens rea standard, let alone the Federal
standard, as it did in other parts of CWA Sections 404(h) or 402(b).
See 33 U.S.C. 1344(h), 1342(b). Indeed, when ``Congress includes
particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts
intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.''
Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369, 378 (2013) (internal quotations
omitted). In contrast to the broad authority that CWA Sections
404(h)(1)(G) and 402(b)(7) provide to determine whether states and
tribes have demonstrated adequate authority to abate violations, other
aspects of state and tribal programs are explicitly required to have
authority that is equivalent to or more stringent than EPA's authority.
For example, states must have the authority ``[t]o inspect, monitor,
enter, and require reports to at least the same extent as required in
section 1318 of this chapter,'' 33 U.S.C. 1344(h)(1)(B); 1342(b)(2)(B)
(emphasis added). Similarly, CWA Section 404(h)(1)(B) requires state-
issued permits to ``apply, and assure compliance with, any applicable
requirements of this section, including, but not limited to, the
guidelines established under subsection (b)(1) of this section, and
sections 1317 and 1343 of this title . . .'' 33 U.S.C. 1344(h)(1)(A)(i)
(emphasis added); and CWA Section 402(b)(1)(A) requires states to issue
permits in compliance with ``sections 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, and 1343
of this title.'' 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(A). The more general language
used to address required state and tribe authorities to abate
violations, and the absence of any citation to CWA Section 309,
indicates that Congress allowed for variability between state or tribal
approaches to certain aspects of enforcement. See 33 U.S.C. 1342
(b)(7).
    EPA interprets the Agency's implementing regulations for CWA
Sections 402 and 404 to allow for approved state and tribal programs to
have different approaches to criminal enforcement than the Federal
government's approach. As noted above, EPA's interpretation is
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in NRDC, 859 F.2d at 180-
81. There, the petitioner challenged the validity of 40 CFR
123.27(a)(3) on the theory that it did not require states to have the
same maximum criminal penalties as the federal program. NRDC, 859 F.2d
at 180. The court reasoned that the petitioner's argument involved a
``logical infirmity''

because it ``presume[d] an unexpressed congressional intent that state
requirements must mirror the federal ones,'' which is ``inconsistent
with the elements of the statutory scheme limiting operation of the
provisions to enforcement efforts at the national level and explicitly
empowering the Administrator to set the prerequisites for state
plans.'' Id. at 180 (discussing 33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(2)(C)). The D.C.
Circuit recognized EPA's ``broad[ ] discretion to respect state
autonomy in the criminal sector'' and that the regulations ``reflect
the balancing of uniformity and state autonomy contemplated by the
Act.'' Id. at 180-81. The court therefore declined ``to divest the
Administrator of this authority'' in the face of congressional silence.
Id.
    EPA's interpretation is also consistent with the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Akiak Native Community v. EPA, in which the Ninth Circuit
declined to require that states have authority to impose administrative
penalties identical to federal authority. See Akiak Native Community,
625 F.3d 1162, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2010). In that case, the petitioner
argued that the State of Alaska did not have adequate authority to
abate violations because Alaska had to initiate a legal proceeding to
assess civil penalties, whereas EPA could do so administratively. Id.
at 1171. The Court held that because ``[t]here is no requirement in the
CWA . . . that state officials have the authority to impose an
administrative penalty'' and ``[t]he language of the statute says
nothing about administrative penalties,'' ``there is no reason to
conclude that Alaska lacks adequate enforcement authorities.'' Id.
1171-72.
    Finally, EPA's longstanding interpretation that CWA Sections 402
and 404 do not require states and tribes to have identical authorities
to EPA's under CWA Section 309 is consistent with the Ninth Circuit's
acknowledgement in Idaho Conservation League v. EPA that ``a state
program need not mirror the burden of proof and degree of knowledge or
intent EPA must meet to bring an enforcement action.'' Slip op. at 3,
citing Consolidated Permit Regulations, 45 FR at 33382 (May 19, 1980).
While EPA does not agree with the Ninth Circuit's unpublished
interpretation of the Agency's regulations, this proposed rulemaking
would clarify the criminal intent standards for existing and
prospective state and tribal enforcement programs under CWA Sections
402 and 404.
    As discussed above, this proposed rulemaking would codify the
interpretation of state and tribal criminal intent requirements that
EPA presented to the Ninth Circuit in the Idaho Conservation League v.
EPA, which is itself consistent with EPA's longstanding interpretation
that state and tribal programs are not required to have the identical
enforcement authority to EPA's under CWA Section 309. To the extent
this interpretation is viewed as different from any earlier
interpretations of CWA Sections 402 and 404 and implementing
regulations, EPA has ample authority to change its interpretation of
ambiguous statutory language. An ``initial agency interpretation is not
instantly carved in stone.'' Chevron, 467 U.S. at 863; see also Encino
Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125 (2016) (``[A]gencies
are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a
reasoned explanation for the change.'') (citations omitted). Rather, a
revised rulemaking based on a change in interpretation of statutory
authorities is well within federal agencies' discretion. Nat'l Ass'n of
Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing FCC
v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)). The agency
must simply explain why ``the new policy is permissible under the
statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency
believes it to be better,'' Fox Television Stations, 566 U.S. at 515.
This preamble meets this standard, providing a reasoned explanation for
EPA's proposal and its consistency with the CWA.
    Though under this proposal EPA is not requiring states or tribes to
have the same criminal enforcement authority that courts have
interpreted EPA to have, the state or tribal standard would still be
based on the term ``negligence'' in the text of CWA Section 309.
Allowing states or tribes flexibility in the degree of negligence for
which they are authorized to bring criminal cases balances the CWA's
priorities of allowing for state and tribal autonomy with adherence to
the purposes of the Act. As noted above, neither CWA Section 402(b)(7)
nor CWA Section 404(h)(1)(G) requires states to abate violations in the
same manner as required under CWA Section 309. The absence of any
citation to CWA Section 309 in CWA Sections 402(b) and 404(h) indicates
that variability may be permitted between Federal and state or tribal
approaches to enforcement.
    The proposed regulatory clarification reflects EPA's experience in
approving and overseeing CWA state programs for over thirty years. Many
states administering or seeking to administer the programs do not
currently have a simple negligence standard, and indeed, may have
statutory or constitutional barriers to such standards. The absence of
simple negligence standards has not served as a bar to effective state
enforcement programs, but the requirement to have such a standard could
dissuade states and tribes from seeking to administer these programs in
the future. Clarifying that states and tribes do not need a simple
negligence standard in their criminal enforcement programs therefore
advances the purposes of CWA Sections 402(b) and 404(g) to balance the
need for uniformity with state autonomy. See NRDC, 859 F.2d at 181
(D.C. Cir. 1988).
    This proposal does not change the standard applicable to EPA's
criminal enforcement of the CWA. Under CWA Section 309, EPA retains its
civil and criminal enforcement authority notwithstanding the
authorization status of a state or tribal permit program.
    Consistent with the CWA's requirement that states and tribes
administering CWA Sections 402 or 404 permitting programs have the
authority to abate civil and criminal violations, EPA is proposing to
include language to clarify in 40 CFR 123.27(a) and 233.41(a)(3) that
states and tribes must have the authority to ``establish violations.''
This new language simply confirms EPA's longstanding interpretation of
the effect of its regulations. EPA also proposes to remove the term
``appropriate'' from the current references to the degree of knowledge
or intent necessary to provide when bringing an action under the
``appropriate Act'' from the CWA Sections 402 and 404 implementing
regulations, as these regulations only refer to actions under the CWA
and no other statute. Therefore, the term ``appropriate'' is
unnecessary. Finally, in 40 CFR 233.41(a)(3), which currently requires
states and tribes to have the authority ``[t]o establish the following
violations and to assess or sue to recover civil penalties and to seek
criminal remedies,'' EPA proposes to replace the word ``remedies'' with
``penalties,'' as ``penalties'' is a more precise description of the
type of relief sought in criminal enforcement actions. None of the
proposed changes listed in this paragraph are intended to change the
substantive effect of the regulations, but simply to clarify existing
requirements.

IV. Request for Comment

    EPA is proposing regulations at 40 CFR 123.27 and 233.41 to clarify
that authorized state and tribal programs under CWA Sections 402(b) and
404(g) are not required to establish the same negligence standard for
criminal enforcement actions that the CWA

establishes for Federal enforcement actions. The Agency solicits
comments on the proposed rulemaking. Refer to Section II.A of this
preamble for instructions on submitting written comments. Comments are
most helpful when accompanied by specific examples and supporting data.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This proposal would provide regulatory clarity for approved
state and tribal CWA Sections 402 and 404 programs as well as for
states and tribes that seek approval for their own CWA Sections 402 or
404 programs. This proposal does not create new information collection
activities.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Agency certifies that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not impose new requirements on any entities but
instead provides clarity for states and tribes that have been approved
to administer or seek approval for their own CWA Sections 402 or 404
programs.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This
action may be of significant interest to states that administer CWA
Sections 402 and 404 programs as well as for states seeking approval to
administer CWA Sections 402 or 404 programs because it clarifies the
appropriate criminal intent standard states must have to enforce these
programs.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does have tribal implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. Although there are no federally recognized tribes that, at
this time, have been approved to administer the CWA programs under
either section 402 or section 404, this rulemaking will assist tribes
in better understanding the applicable criminal intent standard for
nearby approved state programs. This could assist tribes as they
participate in state permitting processes. Additionally, this
rulemaking will also inform tribes about the applicable criminal
negligence intent standard as they consider whether to pursue approval
for the NPDES permitting program and/or assumption of the dredged and
fill permitting program.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe that there are environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action that present a disproportionate
risk to children. This proposal does not change the programmatic
requirements of the CWA Sections 402 and 404 programs and has no direct
impacts on the environment.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
proposed action does not change existing programmatic CWA Sections 402
and 404 requirements. Instead this proposed rulemaking clarifies the
current requirements for the criminal intent standard that is
applicable to state and tribal programs.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 123

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Indians--
lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 233

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Indian--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control, Endangered and threatened
species.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR parts 123 and 233 as follows:

PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart B--State Program Submissions

0
2. Section 123.27 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(3) introductory text,
and (a)(3)(ii);
0
b. Removing the note that appears after paragraph (a)(3)(ii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  123.27  Requirements for enforcement authority.

    (a) Any State agency administering a program shall have the
authority to establish the following violations and have available the
following remedies and penalties for such violations of State program
requirements:
* * * * *
    (3) To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties and to
seek criminal penalties as follows:
* * * * *
    (ii) Criminal fines shall be recoverable against any person who
willfully or negligently violates any applicable standards or
limitations; any NPDES permit condition; or any NPDES filing
requirement. These fines shall be assessable in at least the amount of
$10,000 a day for each violation.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required
under State law for establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, shall be no greater than the burden of proof or degree of
knowledge or intent EPA must provide when it brings an action under the
Act, except that a State may establish criminal violations based on any
form or type of negligence.
* * * * *

PART 233--404 STATE PROGRAM REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 233 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
4. Section 233.41 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory
text, (a)(3)(ii), and (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  233.41  Requirements for enforcement authority.

    (a) * * *
    (3) To establish the following violations and to assess or sue to
recover civil penalties and to seek criminal penalties, as follows:
* * * * *
    (ii) To seek criminal fines against any person who willfully or
with criminal negligence discharges dredged or fill material without
required permits or violates any permit condition issued under section
404 in the amount of at least $10,000 per day of such violation.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required
under State law for establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, shall be no greater than the burden of proof or degree of
knowledge or intent EPA must provide when it brings an action under the
Act, except that a State may establish criminal violations based on any
form or type of negligence.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-26777 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10117-10118]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4579-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4579-DR), dated January 12,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued January 12, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 12, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Georgia resulting from Tropical Storm Zeta on October 29, 2020,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Georgia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Leda Khoury, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Banks, Carroll, Cherokee, Dawson, Douglas, Fannin, Forsyth,
Franklin, Gilmer, Habersham, Hall, Haralson, Heard, Lumpkin,
Paulding, Pickens, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union, and White Counties
for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03311 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12738-12740]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0186]

Inorganic Arsenic Standard; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Inorganic Arsenic
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection

through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2011-0186) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). OSHA will place all comments and requests to speak, including
personal information, in the public docket, which may be available
online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting
personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates.
For further information on submitting comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act, or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements in the Inorganic Arsenic
Standard provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects
associated with exposure to inorganic arsenic. The Inorganic Arsenic
Standard requires employers to: Monitor workers' exposure to inorganic
arsenic, and notify workers of exposure-monitoring results; establish,
implement, and update at least annually a written compliance program to
reduce exposures to or below the permissible exposure limit by means of
engineering and work practice controls; notify anyone who cleans
protective clothing or equipment of the potentially harmful effects of
inorganic arsenic exposure; develop, update, and maintain a
housekeeping and maintenance plan; monitor worker health by providing
medical surveillance; post warning signs, and apply labels to shipping
and storage containers of inorganic arsenic; develop and maintain
worker exposure monitoring and medical records; and provide workers
with information about their exposures and the health effects of
exposure to inorganic arsenic.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Inorganic Arsenic Standard (29
CFR 1910.1018). The agency is proposing an adjustment increase of 32
burden hours, from 10,389 hours to 10,430 hours. The increase in burden
is due to an error in the calculations and a change in rounding of the
burden hours and cost. The numbers are not rounded until the totals.
The number of workers being monitored and receiving medical exams
remains the same. The total capital cost remains the same $1,120,896.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Inorganic Arsenic Standard (29 CFR 1910.1018).
    OMB Number: 1218-0104.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 889.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion; quarterly; semi-annually;
annually.
    Total Responses: 17,451.
    Average Time per response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 10,430.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $1,120,896.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. Please note:
While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service, all
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0186).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and docket number so the agency can attach them to
your comments.
    Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. Comments and submissions
are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as
social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information
(e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or
download through this website. All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket
Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to
submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's
``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
(TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about materials not available
through the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate
docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority

for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 25, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-04708 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42049-42050]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18846]

========================================================================
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. 82, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 6, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0863]

Airworthiness Criteria: Glider Design Criteria for Alexander
Schleicher GmbH & Co. Models ASG 32 & ASG 32 Mi Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed design criteria.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of and requests
comments on the proposed design criteria for the Alexander Schleicher
GmbH & Co. models ASG 32 & ASG 32 Mi gliders. The administrator finds
the proposed design criteria, which make up the certification basis for
the ASG 32 & ASG 32 Mi gliders, acceptable.These final design criteria
will be published in the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0863
using any of the following methods:
    [square] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
    [square] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
    [square] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [square] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Rutherford, AIR-692, Federal
Aviation Administration, Policy & Innovation Division, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the design criteria, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that
you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these airworthiness design criteria based on received comments.

Background

    On August 23, 2016, Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. submitted an
application for type validation of the ASG 32 glider and ASG 32 Mi
powered glider in accordance with the Technical Implementation
Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between
the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Revision 5,
dated September 15, 2015. Both models will be documented on a single
type certificate. The model ASG 32 is a two-seat, mid-wing, glider
constructed from carbon-, glass-, and synthetic-fiber reinforced
plastic and features a 65.6 foot (20 meter) wingspan with flaps,
double-panel Schempp-Hirth airbrakes on the upper wing surface,
winglets, water ballast tanks in the wing, and optional tanks in the
fuselage. The glider also features a retractable landing gear with
hydraulic disc brakes and a conventional T-type tailplane. The model
ASG 32 Mi adds a retractable engine and fixed pitch propeller mounted
in the center fuselage behind the cockpit which allows the glider to be
self-launching. Both glider versions have a maximum weight of 1,874
pounds (850 kilograms). The EASA type certificated the ASG 32 and ASG
32 Mi gliders under Type Certificate Number (No.) EASA.A.599 on
February 11, 2016. The associated EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet
(TCDS) No. EASA.A.599 defined the certification basis Alexander
Schleicher GmbH & Co. submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance.
    The applicable requirements for glider certification in the United
States can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21.17-2A, ``Type
Certification--Fixed-Wing Gliders (Sailplanes), Including Powered
Gliders,'' dated February 10, 1993. AC 21.17-2A has been the basis for
certification of gliders and powered gliders in the United States for
many years. AC 21.17-2A states that applicants may utilize the Joint
Aviation Requirements (JAR)-22, ``Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes,''
or another accepted airworthiness criteria, or a combination of both,
as the accepted means for showing compliance for glider type
certification.

Type Certification Basis

    The applicant proposed a Certification Basis based on EASA
Certification Specification (CS)-22, ``Sailplanes and Powered
Sailplanes'', amendment 2, dated March 05, 2009. In addition to CS-22
requirements, the applicant proposed to comply with other requirements
from the certification basis referenced in EASA TCDS No. EASA.A.599,
including special conditions and equivalent safety findings.

The Proposed Design Criteria

    Applicable Airworthiness Criteria under Sec.  21.17(b).
    Based on the Special Class provisions of Sec.  21.17(b), the
following airworthiness requirements form the FAA Certification Basis
for this design:
    1. 14 CFR part 21, effective February 1, 1965, including amendments
21-1 through 21-98 as applicable.
    2. EASA CS-22, amendment 2, dated March 05, 2009.
    3. EASA Special Condition No. SC-A.22.1.01, ``Increase in maximum
mass for sailplanes and powered sailplanes.''
    4. EASA Equivalent Safety Finding to CS-22.335(f)--Alternate method
to calculate the Design Maximum Speed (VD) using the
Organisation Scientifique et Technique Internationale du Vol [aacute]
Voile (OSTIV), Airworthiness Standards for Sailplanes, dated July 1997.
    5. EASA Equivalent Safety Finding to CS-22.585(a)--Alternate basis
for lower towing loads and subsequent lower lauching hook attachment
loads.
    6. ``Standards for Structural Substantiation of Sailplane and
Powered Sailplane Parts Consisting of Glass or Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Plastics,'' Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) document no. I4-FVK/91, issued
July 1991.
    7. ``Guideline for the analysis of the electrical system for
powered sailplanes,'' LBA document no. I334-MS 92, issued September 15,
1992.
    8. Operations allowed: VFR-Day
    9. EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet No. EASA.A.599, Issue 02, dated
March 17, 2016.
    10. Date of application for FAA Type Certificate: August 23, 2016.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August 28, 2017.
William Schinstock,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18846 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54753-54754]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13305-002]

Whitestone Power and Communications; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Draft Application, Request for Waivers
of Integrated Licensing Process Regulations Necessary for Expedited
Processing of a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License Application, and
Soliciting Comments

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File a License Application
for an Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.
    b. Project No.: 13305-002.
    c. Date Filed: August 22, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: Whitestone Power and Communications.
    e. Name of Project: Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream
Energy Conversion Power Project (also known as Whitestone Poncelet
RISEC Project).
    f. Location: On the Tanana River within the Unorganized Borough,
near Delta Junction, Alaska.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven M. Selvaggio, Whitestone Power and
Communications, P.O. Box 1630, Delta Junction, Alaska 99737; (907) 895-
4938.
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Whitestone Power and Communications (Whitestone) has filed with
the Commission: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) to file an application for
an original license for a hydrokinetic pilot project and a draft
license; (2) a request for waivers of the integrated licensing process
regulations necessary for expedited processing of a hydrokinetic pilot
project license application; (3) a proposed process plan and schedule;
(4) a request to be designated as the non-Federal representative for
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation; and (5) a request
to be designated as the non-Federal representative for section 106
consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (collectively
the pre-filing materials).
    k. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the pre-filing
materials listed in paragraph j above, including the draft license
application and monitoring plans. All comments should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments (original and
eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings
with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name
(Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy Conversion Power
Project) and number (P-13305-002), and bear the heading ``Comments on
the proposed Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy
Conversion Power Project.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting comments on the pre-filing materials must do so by September
21, 2011.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-filing'' link.
    l. With this notice, we are approving Whitestone's request to be
designated as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its request to initiate consultation
under section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act; and recommending that it begin
informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7 of ESA;
and (b) the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    m. This notice does not constitute the Commission's approval of
Whitestone's request to use the Pilot Project Licensing Procedures.
Upon its review of the project's overall characteristics relative to
the pilot project criteria, the draft license application contents, and
any comments filed, the Commission will determine whether there is
adequate information to conclude the pre-filing process.
    n. The proposed Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy
Conversion Power Project would consist of: (1) A 12-foot-wide, 16-foot-
diameter Poncelet undershot water wheel; (2) a 34-foot-long, 19- to 24-
foot-wide, aluminum-frame floatation platform mounted on a 34-foot-
long, 3.5-foot-diameter high-density-polyethylene (HDPE) pontoon and a
34-foot-long, 3-foot-diameter HDPE pontoon; (3) a 100-kilowatt turbine/
generator unit; (4) a 33-foot-long, 3.5-foot-wide gangway from the
shore to the floating pontoon; (5) three anchoring cables to secure the
flotation platform to the shore, including a 30-foot-long primary
safety tether, a 117-foot-long primary cable, and a 100-foot-long
secondary cable; (6) an approximately 900-foot-long transmission cable
from the floatation platform to an existing Golden Valley Electric
Association distribution line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The
project is anticipated to operate from April until October, with an
estimated annual generation of 200 megawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the draft license application and all pre-filing
materials are available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    p. Pre-filing process schedule. The pre-filing process will be
conducted pursuant to the following tentative schedule. Revisions to
the schedule below may be made based on staff's review of the draft
application and any comments received.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                                                   Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on pre-filing materials due...  September 21, 2011.
Issuance of meeting notice (if needed).  October 6, 2011.
Public meeting/technical conference (if  November 7, 2011.
 needed).
Issuance of notice concluding pre-       October 21, 2011 (if no meeting is needed).
 filing process and ILP waiver request   December 1, 2011 (if meeting is needed).
 determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    q. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 25, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22506 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO  80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8
Ref: 8ARD-PM

Mr. Danny Powers
Air Quality Program Manager
Southern Ute Indian Tribe Environmental Programs
P.O. Box 737, Mail Slot #84
Ignacio, Colorado  81137-0737
Via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Re:	Red Cedar Gathering Company, South Ignacio Central Delivery Point,
Permit #SMNSR-SU-000031-2019.004, Proposed Synthetic Minor New Source Review Permit

Dear Mr. Powers:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 is proposing to issue a revised synthetic Tribal Minor New Source Review (MNSR) permit for the existing Red Cedar Gathering Company (Red Cedar), South Ignacio Central Delivery Point (South Ignacio CDP) on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. As requested by Red Cedar, this permit would incorporate several changes. First, it would reflect the removal of facility-wide hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and formaldehyde (CH2O) emission limits. Second, it would remove benzene emissions limits for the dehydration units. Third, it would correct the listed site horsepower (hp) rating and remove the CH2O emissions limit for the rich-burn compressor engine and remove the carbon monoxide (CO) and CH2O emissions limitations for each of the seven lean-burn engines. As a result of the requested changes, the four-stroke rich-burn reciprocating internal combustion engine (4SRB RICE) will now be subject to the compliance requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ (new, greater than 500 hp, 4SRB RICE, located at a major source of HAP). To better align compliance requirements with subpart ZZZZ, we are proposing to replace the quarterly nitrogen oxides (NOX) and CO monitoring requirements with semiannual NOX and CO performance test requirements. The monitoring frequency of the pressure drop across the catalyst bed would also be changed from once every seven days to once every 30 days.

An initial public comment period for the proposed revised permit was conducted from June 19, 2020 to July 20, 2020, during which the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Air Quality Program commented that the public notice bulletin, technical support document and proposed revised permit incorrectly stated that proposed changes would not increase allowable emissions at South Ignacio Central Delivery Point. We have corrected such statements, reevaluated the impact of the proposed revisions, conducted an air quality impacts analysis of the increases in allowable emissions from the proposed changes, clarified certain permit conditions and added the tribe as a recipient of required reports. As such, we are making the proposed permit and supporting documents available for a second public comment period.

A public comment period for the proposed permit will begin on October 1, 2020, and end on November 2, 2020.

The proposed permit and supporting documentation are available in the electronic docket at Regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0290), and we ask that you please assist members of the public who contact you with instructions on how to access the material available for public review until the end of the public comment period. Comments may be submitted via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0290). In addition, we have provided copies of the bulletin board public notice announcement and would appreciate it if you could post this announcement in prominent locations in your area. All of these documents will also be available for review in electronic format on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit-public-comment-opportunities-region-8.

If you have any questions concerning the enclosed proposed permit or technical support documents, please contact Suman Kunwar, of my staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                       Sincerely,

                                      Carl Daly
                                      Acting Director
                                      Air and Radiation Division

Enclosures


[Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26351-26352]
[DOCID:fr09my07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-416-000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 3B, to
become effective June 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8848 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P