[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50317-50320]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0413; Special Conditions No. 23-259-SC]

Special Conditions: Cessna Aircraft Company, Model J182T; Diesel
Cycle Engine Installation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Cessna Aircraft
Company (Cessna) Model J182T airplane. This airplane will have a novel
or unusual design feature(s) associated with the installation of an
aircraft diesel engine (ADE). The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: August 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Rouse, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816)
329-4135; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 2, 2012, Cessna applied for an amendment to Type
Certificate No. 3A13 to include the new Model J182T with the Societe de
Motorisation Aeronautiques (SMA) Engines, Inc. SR305-230E-C1 which is a
four-stroke, air cooled, diesel cycle engine that uses turbine (jet)
fuel. The Model No. J182T, which is a derivative of the T182 currently
approved under Type Certificate No. 3A13, is an aluminum, four place,
single engine airplane with a cantilever high wing, with the SMA SR305-
230E-C1 diesel cycle engine and associated systems installed.
    In anticipation of the reintroduction of diesel engine technology
into the small airplane fleet, the FAA issued Policy Statement PS-
ACE100-2002-004 on May 15, 2004, which identified areas of
technological concern. Refer to this policy for a detailed summary of
the FAA's development of diesel engine requirements.
    The general areas of concern involving the application of a diesel
cycle engine are:
     The power characteristics of the engine,
     the use of turbine fuel in an airplane class that is
typically powered by gasoline fueled engines,
     the vibration characteristics, both normal and with an
inoperative cylinder,
     anticipated use of an electronic engine control system,
     the appropriate limitations and indications for a diesel
cycle engine, and
     the failure modes of a diesel cycle engine.

A historical record review of diesel engine use in aircraft and part 23
identified these concerns. The review identified specific regulatory
areas requiring evaluation for applicability to diesel engine
installations. These concerns are not considered universally applicable
to all types of possible diesel engines and diesel engine
installations. However, after reviewing the Cessna installation, the
SMA engine type, the SMA engine requirements, and Policy Statement PS-
ACE100-2002-004, the FAA proposes engine installation and fuel system
special conditions. The SMA engine has a Full Authority Digital Engine
Control (FADEC), which also requires special conditions. The FADEC
special conditions will be issued in a separate notice.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, Cessna must show that the
J182T meets the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated
by reference in Type Certificate No. 3A13 or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of application for the change to the model T182T.
The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are
commonly referred to as the ``original type certification basis.'' In
addition, the J182T certification basis includes special conditions and
equivalent levels of safety.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the J182T because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the J182T must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.101.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The J182T will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: The installation of an ADE.

Discussion

    Several major concerns were identified in developing FAA policy.
These include installing the diesel engine and noting its vibration
levels under both normal operating conditions and when one cylinder is
inoperative. The concerns also include accommodating turbine fuels in
airplane systems that have generally evolved based on gasoline
requirements, anticipated use of a FADEC to control the engine, and
appropriate limitations and indications for a diesel engine powered
airplane. The general concerns associated with the aircraft diesel
engine installation are as follows:

Installation and Vibration Requirements
Fuel and Fuel System Related Requirements
Limitations and Indications

    Installation and Vibration Requirements: These special conditions
include requirements similar to the

requirements of Sec.  23.901(d)(1) for turbine engines. In addition to
the requirements of Sec.  23.901 applied to reciprocating engines, the
applicant will be required to construct and arrange each diesel engine
installation to result in vibration characteristics that do not exceed
those established during the type certification of the engine. These
vibration levels must not exceed vibration characteristics that a
previously certificated airframe structure has been approved for,
unless such vibration characteristics are shown to have no effect on
safety or continued airworthiness. The engine installation must be
shown to be free of whirl mode flutter and also any one cylinder
inoperative flutter effects. The engine limit torque design
requirements as specified in Sec.  23.361 are also modified.
    An additional requirement to consider vibration levels and/or
effects of an inoperative cylinder was imposed. Also, a requirement to
evaluate the engine design for the possibility of, or effect of,
liberating high-energy engine fragments, in the event of a catastrophic
engine failure, requirements was added.
    Fuel and Fuel System Related Requirements: Due to the use of
turbine fuel, this airplane must comply with the requirements in Sec.
23.951(c). In addition, the fuel flow requirements of Sec.  23.955(c)
are modified to be reflective of the diesel engine operating
characteristics.
    Section 23.961 will be complied with using the turbine fuel
requirements. These requirements will be substantiated by flight-
testing as described in Advisory Circular (AC) 23-8C, Flight Test Guide
for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes.
    This special condition specifically requires testing to show
compliance to Sec.  23.961 and adds the possibility of testing non-
aviation diesel fuels.
    To ensure fuel system compatibility and reduce the possibility of
misfueling, and discounting the first clause of Sec.  23.973(f)
referring to turbine engines, the applicant will comply with Sec.
23.973(f).
    Due to the use of turbine fuel, the applicant will comply with
Sec.  23.977(a)(2), and Sec.  23.977(a)(1) will not apply. ``Turbine
engines'' will be interpreted to mean ``aircraft diesel engine'' for
this requirement. An additional requirement to consider the possibility
of fuel freezing was imposed.
    Due to the use of turbine fuel, the applicant will comply with
Sec.  23.1305(c)(8).
    Due to the use of turbine fuel, the applicant must comply with
Sec.  23.1557(c)(1)(ii). Section 23.1557(c)(1)(ii) will not apply.
``Turbine engine'' is interpreted to mean ``aircraft diesel engine''
for this requirement.

Limitations and Indications

    Section 23.1305 will apply, except that the critical engine
parameters for this installation that will be displayed include:
    (1) Power setting, in percentage, and
    (2) Fuel temperature.
    Due to the use of turbine fuel, the requirements for Sec.
23.1521(d), as applicable to fuel designation for turbine engines, as
well as compliance to Sec.  23.1557(c)(1)(ii) will be in lieu of Sec.
23.1557(c)(1)(i).

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of final special conditions No. 23-259-SC, with request for
comments, for Cessna Aircraft Company, Model J182T was published in the
Federal Register on May 16, 2013 (78 FR 28719). One comment was
received from Cessna Aircraft Company indicating AC-23-8B is referenced
in the ``Discussion'' section of this special condition; however, AC
23-8C is used in ``The Special Conditions'' section. It was the FAA's
intent to reference the current advisory circular, AC 23-8C, throughout
this document. Compliance with the current AC 23-8, regardless of
revision version, is required. These final special conditions corrects
this oversight by changing the reference to AC 23-8B to AC 23-8C in the
``Discussion'' section above.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model J182T. Should Cessna apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these
features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Cessna Model J182T airplanes.

1. Engine Torque (Provisions Similar to Sec.  23.361(b)(1) and (c)(3))

    a. For diesel engine installations, the engine mounts and
supporting structure must be designed to withstand the following:
    (1) A limit engine torque load imposed by sudden engine stoppage
due to malfunction or structural failure.
    (2) The effects of sudden engine stoppage may alternatively be
mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers
clutches, and similar provisions, so unacceptable load levels are not
imposed on the previously certificated structure.
    b. The limit engine torque to be considered under Sec.  23.361(a)
must be obtained by multiplying the mean torque by a factor of four for
diesel cycle engines.
    (1) If a factor of less than four is used, it must be shown that
the limit torque imposed on the engine mount is consistent with the
provisions of Sec.  23.361(c). In other words, it must be shown that
the use of the factors listed in Sec.  23.361(c)(3) will result in
limit torques on the mount that are equivalent to or less than those
imposed by a conventional gasoline reciprocating engine.

2. Flutter--(Compliance With Sec.  23.629(e)(1) and (e)(2)
Requirements)

    The flutter evaluation of the airplane done in accordance with
Sec.  23.629 must include--
    (a) Whirl mode degree of freedom which takes into account the
stability of the plane of rotation of the propeller and significant
elastic, inertial, and aerodynamic forces, and
    (b) Propeller, engine, engine mount and airplane structure
stiffness and damping variations appropriate to the particular
configuration, and
    (c) The flutter investigation will include showing the airplane is
free from flutter with one cylinder inoperative.

3. Powerplant--Installation (Provisions Similar to Sec.  23.901(d)(1)
for Turbine Engines)

    Considering the vibration characteristics of diesel engines, the
applicant must comply with the following:

    a. Each diesel engine installation must be constructed and arranged
to result in vibration characteristics that--
    (1) Do not exceed those established during the type certification
of the engine; and
    (2) Do not exceed vibration characteristics that a previously
certificated airframe structure has been approved for--
    (i) Unless such vibration characteristics are shown to have no
effect on safety or continued airworthiness, or
    (ii) Unless mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of
isolators, dampers clutches, and similar provisions, so that
unacceptable vibration levels are not imposed on the previously
certificated structure.

4. Powerplant--Fuel System--Fuel System With Water Saturated Fuel
(Compliance With Sec.  23.951(c) Requirements)

    Considering the fuel types used by diesel engines, the applicant
must comply with the following:
    a. Each fuel system for a diesel engine must be capable of
sustained operation throughout its flow and pressure range with fuel
initially saturated with water at 80[emsp14][deg]F and having 0.75cc of
free water per gallon added and cooled to the most critical condition
for icing likely to be encountered in operation.
    b. Methods of compliance that are acceptable for turbine engine
fuel systems requirements of Sec.  23.951(c) are also considered
acceptable for this requirement.

5. Powerplant--Fuel System--Fuel Flow (Compliance With Sec.  23.955
Requirements)

    In place of Sec.  23.955(c), the engine fuel system must provide at
least 100 percent of the fuel flow required by the engine, or the fuel
flow required to prevent engine damage, if that flow is greater than
100 percent. The fuel flow rate must be available to the engine under
each intended operating condition and maneuver. The conditions may be
simulated in a suitable mockup. This flow must be shown in the most
adverse fuel feed condition with respect to altitudes, attitudes, and
any other condition that is expected in operation.

6. Powerplant--Fuel System--Fuel System Hot Weather Operation
(Compliance With Sec.  23.961 Requirements)

    In place of compliance with Sec.  23.961, the applicant must comply
with the following:
    a. Each fuel system must be free from vapor lock when using fuel at
its critical temperature, with respect to vapor formation, when
operating the airplane in all critical operating and environmental
conditions for which approval is requested. For turbine fuel, or for
aircraft equipped with diesel cycle engines that use turbine or diesel
type fuels, the initial temperature must be 110[emsp14][deg]F, -0[deg],
+5[deg] or the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is
requested, whichever is more critical.
    b. The fuel system must be in an operational configuration that
will yield the most adverse, that is, conservative results.
    c. To comply with this requirement, the applicant must use the
turbine fuel requirements and must substantiate these by flight-
testing, as described in Advisory Circular (AC) 23-8C, Flight Test
Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes.

7. Powerplant--Fuel System--Fuel Tank Filler Connection (Compliance
With Sec.  23.973(f) Requirements)

    In place of compliance with Sec.  23.973(e), the applicant must
comply with the following:
    For airplanes that operate on turbine or diesel type fuels, the
inside diameter of the fuel filler opening must be no smaller than 2.95
inches.

8. Powerplant--Fuel System--Fuel Tank Outlet (Compliance With Sec.
23.977(a)(2) Requirements)

    In place of compliance with Sec.  23.977(a)(1), the applicant will
comply with the following:
    There must be a fuel strainer for the fuel tank outlet or for the
booster pump. This strainer must, for diesel engine powered airplanes,
prevent the passage of any object that could restrict fuel flow or
damage any fuel system component.

9. Equipment--General--Powerplant Instruments (Compliance With Sec.
23.1305 and Sec.  91.205 Requirements)

    In place of compliance with Sec.  23.1305, the applicant will
comply with the following:
    Below are required powerplant instruments:
    (a) A fuel quantity indicator for each fuel tank, installed in
accordance with Sec.  23.1337(b).
    (b) An oil pressure indicator.
    (c) An oil temperature indicator.
    (d) An oil quantity measuring device for each oil tank which meets
the requirements of Sec.  23.1337(d).
    (e) A tachometer indicating propeller speed.
    (f) An indicating means for the fuel strainer or filter required by
Sec.  23.997 to indicate the occurrence of contamination of the
strainer or filter before it reaches the capacity established in
accordance with Sec.  23.997(d).
    Alternately, no indicator is required if the engine can operate
normally for a specified period with the fuel strainer exposed to the
maximum fuel contamination as specified in MIL-5007D. Additionally,
provisions for replacing the fuel filter at this specified period (or a
shorter period) are included in the maintenance schedule for the engine
installation.
    (g) Power setting either in percentage power, or through the use of
manifold pressure.
    (h) Fuel temperature indicator.
    (i) Fuel flow indicator (engine fuel consumption) or fuel pressure.
    If percentage power is used in place of manifold pressure,
compliance to Sec.  91.205 will be accomplished with the following:
    The diesel engine has no manifold pressure gauge as required by
Sec.  91.205, in its place, the engine instrumentation as installed is
to be approved as equivalent. The Type Certification Data Sheet (TCDS)
is to be modified to show power indication will be accepted to be
equivalent to the manifold pressure indication.

10. Operating Limitations and Information--Powerplant Limitations--Fuel
Grade or Designation (Compliance With Sec.  23.1521 Requirements)

    All engine parameters that have limits specified by the engine
manufacturer for takeoff or continuous operation must be investigated
to ensure they remain within those limits throughout the expected
flight and ground envelopes (e.g. maximum and minimum fuel
temperatures, ambient temperatures, as applicable, etc.). This is in
addition to the existing requirements specified by Sec.  23.1521(b) and
(c). If any of those limits can be exceeded, there must be continuous
indication to the flight crew of the status of that parameter with
appropriate limitation markings.
    Instead of compliance with Sec.  23.1521(d), the applicant must
comply with the following:
    The minimum fuel designation (for diesel engines) must be
established so it is not less than required for the operation of the
engine within the limitations in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec.
23.1521.

11. Markings and Placards--Miscellaneous Markings and Placards--Fuel,
and Oil, Filler Openings (Compliance With Sec.  23.1557(c)(1)(ii)
Requirements)

    Instead of compliance with Sec.  23.1557(c)(1)(i), the applicant
must comply with the following:
    Fuel filler openings must be marked at or near the filler cover
with--
    For diesel engine-powered airplanes--
    (a) The words ``Jet Fuel''; and
    (b) The permissible fuel designations, or references to the
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) for permissible fuel designations.
    (c) A warning placard or note that states the following or similar:
    ``Warning--this airplane is equipped with an aircraft diesel
engine; service with approved fuels only.''
    The colors of this warning placard should be black and white.

12. Powerplant--Fuel System--Fuel-Freezing

    If the fuel in the tanks cannot be shown to flow suitably under all
possible temperature conditions, then fuel temperature limitations are
required. These limitations will be considered as part of the essential
operating parameters for the aircraft. Limitations will be determined
as follows:
    (a) The takeoff temperature limitation must be determined by
testing or analysis to define the minimum fuel cold-soaked temperature
that the airplane can operate on.
    (b) The minimum operating temperature limitation must be determined
by testing to define the minimum acceptable operating temperature after
takeoff (with minimum takeoff temperature established in (1) above).

13. Powerplant Installation--Vibration Levels

    Vibration levels throughout the engine operating range must be
evaluated and:
    (a) Vibration levels imposed on the airframe must be less than or
equivalent to those of the gasoline engine; or
    (b) Any vibration level higher than that imposed on the airframe by
the replaced gasoline engine must be considered in the modification and
the effects on the technical areas covered by the following paragraphs
must be investigated:
    14 CFR part 23, Sec. Sec.  23.251; 23.613; 23.627; 23.629 (or CAR
3.159, as applicable to various models); 23.572; 23.573; 23.574 and
23.901.
    Vibration levels imposed on the airframe can be mitigated to an
acceptable level by utilization of isolators, damper clutches, and
similar provisions so that unacceptable vibration levels are not
imposed on the previously certificated structure.

14. Powerplant Installation--One Cylinder Inoperative

    Tests or analysis, or a combination of methods, must show that the
airframe can withstand the shaking or vibratory forces imposed by the
engine if a cylinder becomes inoperative. Diesel engines of
conventional design typically have extremely high levels of vibration
when a cylinder becomes inoperative. Data must be provided to the
airframe installer/modifier so either appropriate design considerations
or operating procedures, or both, can be developed to prevent airframe
and propeller damage.

15. Powerplant Installation--High Energy Engine Fragments

    It may be possible for diesel engine cylinders (or portions
thereof) to fail and physically separate from the engine at high
velocity (due to the high internal pressures). This failure mode will
be considered possible in engine designs with removable cylinders or
other non-integral block designs. The following is required:
    (a) It must be shown that the engine construction type (massive or
integral block with non-removable cylinders) is inherently resistant to
liberating high energy fragments in the event of a catastrophic engine
failure; or
    (b) It must be shown by the design of the engine, that engine
cylinders, other engine components or portions thereof (fragments)
cannot be shed or blown off of the engine in the event of a
catastrophic engine failure; or
    (c) It must be shown that all possible liberated engine parts or
components do not have adequate energy to penetrate engine cowlings; or
    (d) Assuming infinite fragment energy, and analyzing the trajectory
of the probable fragments and components, any hazard due to liberated
engine parts or components will be minimized and the possibility of
crew injury is eliminated. Minimization must be considered during
initial design and not presented as an analysis after design
completion.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 12, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20152 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36528-36529]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-468-012; ER00-3621-013; ER04-318-009; ER05-36-
009; ER05-37-009; ER05-34-009; ER05-35-009; ER04-249-009; ER99-1695-
018; ER02-23-016; ER07-1306-008; ER97-30-010; ER96-2869-017; ER08-1323-
004; ER97-3561-009.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Energy
Brayton Point, LLC, Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., Dominion
Energy New England, Inc., Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC, Dominion
Retail, Inc., Elwood Energy, LLC, Fairless Energy, LLC, NedPower Mt.
Storm, LLC, Kincaid Generation, LLC, State Line Energy, LLC, Fowler
Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Market Power Analyses Revised Appendix of Assets of
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 06/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110610-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3807-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Notice of Termination of the Engineering and
Procurement Agreement between Basin Electric Power Cooperative and
Northern States Power Company, FERC Electric Tariff Second Revised
Volume No. 3. Service Agreement No. 280-NSP.
    Filed Date: 06/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110615-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3808-000.
    Applicants: ORNI 39, LLC.
    Description: ORNI 39, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12: Petition
of ORNI 39 LLC For Approval of Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110616-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 07, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES11-38-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Upper Peninsula Power Company's Application for
Authorization to Issue Securities Under Section 204 of the Federal
Power Act.
    Filed Date: 06/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110615-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 06, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF11-274-000.
    Applicants: CraftMaster Manufacturing, Inc.
    Description: Form 556--Notice of self-certification of qualifying
cogeneration facility status of CraftMaster Manufacturing, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110520-5101.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF11-276-000.
    Applicants: Iowa Combined Heat and Power LLC.
    Description: Form 556--Notice of self-certification of qualifying
cogeneration facility status of Iowa Combined Heat and Power LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110520-5164.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying

facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are
qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and
protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility
dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 16, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15545 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 77100]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14992-000]

Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit; Pumped Hydro Storage
LLC

    Take notice that Pumped Hydro Storage LLC, permittee for the
proposed Salt Trail Canyon Pumped Storage Project, has requested that
its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on May 21,
2020, and would have expired on April 30, 2023.\1\ The project would
have been located on the Little Colorado River in Coconino County,
Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 171 FERC ] 61,137 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14992 will remain in effect
until the close of business, January 11, 2023. But, if the Commission
is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the
close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\
New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the
permit surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2021).

    Dated: December 12, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27314 Filed 12-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40395-40397]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15730]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0405; FRL-8708-01-R7]

Air Plan Approval; Approval of Missouri Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Revisions to St. Louis 1997 PM2.5 Maintenance
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Missouri on November 12, 2019, revising the maintenance plan
demonstrating continued maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the St. Louis area.
This revision states that the St. Louis area no longer needs to rely on
the vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program and the use of
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) for continued maintenance throughout the
maintenance period for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to determine that this revision meets the requirements of the
Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0405 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will 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 ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Brown, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-
0405, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted by the
State of Missouri on November 12, 2019, revising the 1997
PM2.5 maintenance plan. This SIP revision demonstrates
continued maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the St.
Louis area through the future year of 2025. The maintenance area
boundary includes the Missouri counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St.
Charles, and St. Louis along with the City of St. Louis.
    Through this action, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MoDNR) is requesting EPA to approve

this maintenance plan into Missouri's SIP pursuant to Clean Air Act
(CAA) Section 175A as a replacement to the maintenance plan previously
approved by EPA on October 2, 2018 (83 FR 38033).
    On August 3, 2018, EPA published in the Federal Register a final
rulemaking approving the State of Missouri's request to redesignate the
Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area to attainment and
their demonstration for maintaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
through the ten-year maintenance period. The effective date for this
approval was on October 2, 2018 (83 FR 38033).
    The SIP revision we are acting on in this proposal, removes the
reliance on the St. Louis vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
program and the use of Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) for continued
maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 standard. To support this
revision, Missouri utilized EPA's 2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES2014b) emission modeling system to project revised
mobile source emissions by removing emissions reductions related to I/M
and RFG throughout the maintenance period to the future year of 2025.
    Tables 1 and 2 below lists the total direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions for the attainment year 2008 and
the projection year 2025 for point, area, onroad and nonroad source
categories of the five counties in the St. Louis area. Because the area
attained the standard in 2008, this represents a level of emissions
suitable to maintain compliance with the 1997 PM2.5
standard. By comparing the total emissions in Tables 1 and 2,
Missouri's emissions analysis shows substantial decreases in mobile
source emissions and decreases in total source category emissions
through the maintenance period of 2025. These decreases in direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants demonstrate the area will
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 standard throughout the
maintenance period without relying on the I/M program or RFG
requirements in the Missouri portion of the maintenance area.

                                              Table-1--St. Louis Area 2008 Total Emissions in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                           Source category              NH3             NOX            PM2.5            SO2             VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Area.............................  Point Source................        1,308.64       31,103.26        3,493.39      201,700.73        5,067.89
                                            Area Source.................        3,514.98        4,382.94       14,033.64       11,510.48       38,215.34
                                            Onroad Source...............        1,056.17       58,819.58        2,179.28          426.65       23,793.80
                                            Nonroad Source..............           15.68       20,722.57        1,199.82           544.3       11,545.53
Illinois Area.............................  Point Source................          208.31       16,608.41        2,438.05       49,895.15        4,270.41
                                            Area Source.................        3,354.13        1,638.36        4,749.40          246.67        7,796.35
                                            Onroad Source...............          304.71       17,965.82          524.49           60.26        6,741.77
                                            Nonroad Source..............            6.04        8,509.49          425.04          355.25        2,944.51
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions Tons/year.............  ............................        9,768.66      159,750.43       29,043.11      264,739.49      100,375.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Table-2--St. Louis Area 2025 Total Emissions in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                           Source category              NH3             NOX            PM2.5            SO2             VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Area.............................  Point Source................        1,431.04       17,051.11        1,945.67       94,687.19        3,106.68
                                            Area Source.................        3,232.53        4,937.54        6,756.09          247.98       26,637.27
                                            Onroad Source...............          624.33       11,718.99          481.94          103.27        6,569.16
                                            Nonroad Source..............           13.10        7,136.63          547.21          134.85        5,664.63
Illinois Area.............................  Point Source................          254.91       13,762.60        2,219.54       44,700.05        5,747.23
                                            Area Source.................        3,374.18        1,735.21        4,668.15          268.04        9,249.75
                                            Onroad Source...............          178.97        3,849.45          119.31           52.83        2,042.78
                                            Nonroad Source..............            8.16        8,687.02          303.26          400.33        1,585.08
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions Tons/year.............  ............................        9,117.22       68,878.55       17,041.17      140,594.54       60,602.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note approval of this maintenance plan revision
does not remove the I/M program or the RFG program requirements from
the SIP.
    In addition, the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) from the
previously SIP approved Maintenance Plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS
\1\ and this SIP submittal remain the same. Therefore, there are no new
MVEBs being created for this SIP revision. Moreover, EPA has revoked
the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which has been replaced
by the more health protective 2012 primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS and Missouri is currently in compliance with this standard (84 FR
36472). As a result, areas that have been redesignated to attainment
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., maintenance areas for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS) will no longer be required to
make transportation conformity determinations for that NAAQS (81 FR
58010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 83 FR 38033, August 3, 2018 (effective date of October 2,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing approval of the revised maintenance plan based on
information provided in the emissions projections, modeling results and
an evaluation of quality assured air monitoring data submitted as part
of this revision and in a previously reviewed analysis as part of the
St. Louis Nonattainment Area 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Redesignation
rulemaking published on August 3, 2018 (83 FR 38033). Current and
future projections of air quality and emissions data for this revision
demonstrates maintenance for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    This revision only affects maintenance for the 1997
PM2.5 standard, only removes the reliance upon the I/M and
RFG programs for continued maintenance and therefore meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    The full text of the plan revisions including Missouri's technical

demonstration can be found in the State's submission, which is included
in the docket for this action.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from July 29, 2019
through September 13, 2019 and received one comment from the Missouri
Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, one comment from
Abel Realty, and thirteen comments from EPA. After receiving comments,
the state revised the SIP prior to submitting the plan to EPA. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the Missouri
submittal document, which is part of the docket, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA proposing to take?

    We are proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Missouri on November 12, 2019, revising the 1997 PM2.5
maintenance plan. EPA is proposing to determine that this revision
would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or with
any other CAA requirement. We are processing this as a proposed action
because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference.

    Dated: July 19, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``(80)'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Appoved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of  nonregulatory SIP        geographic or          State       EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment  area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(80) Revisions to St. Louis 1997   St. Louis Area:          11/12/2019  [Date of             This action
 PM2.5 Maintenance Plan.            Missouri counties                    publication of the   replaces the
                                    of Franklin,                         final rule in the    Maintenance plan
                                    Jefferson, St.                       Federal Register],   for the 1997 PM2.5
                                    Charles, and St.                     [Federal Register    (83 FR 38033) [EPA-
                                    Louis along with                     citation of the      R07-OAR-2017-0734;
                                    the City of St.                      final rule].         FRL 9981-29-Region
                                    Louis.                                                    7].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-15730 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 8305-8307]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

February 6, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER02-1633-005; ER04-1099-004; ER03-25-004; ER00-38-
007; ER08-530-000; ER03-290-005; ER00-1115-006; ER04-1080-004; ER00-
3562-006; ER03-209-005; ER05-816-003; ER05-1422-005; ER05-819-

003; ER05-820-003; ER05-48-003; ER04-831-005; ER03-36-007; ER02-1367-
005; ER03-446-005; ER08-531-000; ER03-341-005; ER03-342-005; ER02-1959-
005; ER08-532-000; ER02-2227-007; ER06-441-002; ER02-600-008; ER99-
1983-006; ER08-533-000; ER01-2688-010; ER02-2229-006; ER02-1257-005;
ER03-24-006; ER04-1221-002; ER05-67-003; ER01-480-006; ER08-534-000;
ER05-68-003; ER04-1081-004; ER03-838-006; ER03-49-004; ER99-970-006;
ER08-529-000 ER03-1288-004; ER01-2887-007; ER04-1100-004; ER02-1319-
006; ER06-754-004; ER06-755-003; ER06-749-003; ER06-751-004; ER06-753-
003; ER06-741-003; ER06-756-003; ER06-750-003; ER06-742-003; ER06-752-
003
    Applicants: Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, L.L.C.; Bethpage
Energy Center 3, LLC; Blue Spruce Energy Center, LLC; BROAD RIVER
ENERGY LLC; Calpine California Equipment Finance Company, LLC; Calpine
Construction Finance Company, LP; Calpine Energy Management, L.P.;
Calpine Energy Services, L.P.; CES Marketing Vi, LLC; Calpine Merchant
Services Company, Inc.; CES Marketing V, L.P.; CES Marketing IX, LLC;
CES Marketing X, LLC; Calpine Bethpage 3, LLC; Calpine Newark, LLC;
Calpine Northbrook Energy Marketing, LLC; Calpine Oneta Power, LP;
Calpine Philadelphia, Inc; Calpine Power America--OR, LLC; Calpine
Power America--CA, LLC; CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine Inc.; CPN Bethpage 3rd
Turbine Inc.; Creed Energy Center, LLC; Decatur Energy Center, LLC;
Delta Energy Center, LLC; Geyers Power Company, LLC; Gilroy Energy
Center, LLC; Goose Haven Energy Center, LLC; HERMISTON POWER
PARTNERSHIP; Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility LLC; Mankato Energy
Center, LLC; Metcalf Energy Center, LLC; MOBILE ENERGY LLC; Pastoria
Energy Center, LLC; PCF2, LLC; Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.;
Riverside Energy Center, LLC; RockGen Energy LLC; Rocky Mountain Energy
Center, LLC; South Point Energy Center, LLC; Zion Energy LLC;
Auburndale Power Partners LP; Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P.; Carville
Energy LLC; Columbia Energy LLC; CPN Pryor Funding Corporation; KIAC
PARTNERS; Los Medanos Energy Center LLC; Morgan Energy Center, LLC;
NISSEQUOGUE COGEN PARTNERS; Pine Bluff Energy, LLC
    Description: Order 697 Compliance Filing and Application for
Authority to Sell Services at Market-Based Rates re Auburndale Peaker
Energy Center LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080205-0293.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1105-004.
    Applicants: Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC's Notice of a Change in
Facts.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080205-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1285-004.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: National Grid submits a refund report.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080206-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 21, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-501-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: AEP Operating Companies submit First Revised
Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1436.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080201-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 21, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-519-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits Amendments to enable the implementation of the Congestion
Revenue Right Contingency Plan.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080204-0115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-527-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Compay of Colorado submits changes in
base rates applicable to service with Aquila Inc et al to be effective
4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080205-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-535-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Public Service Co of Colorado submits the Renewable
Energy Certificate Rider with Intermountain Rural Electric Association.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080205-0323.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-536-000.
    Applicants: Polytop Corporation.
    Description: Polutop Corporation submits their FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080206-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-538-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits its revised tariff sheets
reflecting proposed revisions to Section III.E.2.2 of Market Rule 1 etc
& testimony of Henry Y Yoshimura.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080206-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an

eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2609 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


FILE NAME: NOF Fruiting Veg 3 19 04. wpd EPA Registration Division contact: Joanne Miller 703 305 6224 PP Number:

Summary of Petition EPA has received a pesticide petition ( insert petition number) from The Interregional Research Project No. 4, North Brunswick, N. J., proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.432 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide lactofen, 1( carboethoxy) ethyl 5[ 2 chloro 4( trifluoromethyl) phenoxy] 2 nitrobenzoate, in or on the raw agricultural commodity crop group, vegetable, fruiting, Crop Group 8 and okra at 0.01 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood based on plant metabolism studies conducted on cotton, peanut, soybean, and tomato. The regulated residue of concern is parent, lactofen. 2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methodology is available for detecting and measuring levels of lactofen in or on raw agricultural commodities with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the level of the proposed tolerances. The method, RM 28D, has been successfully radiovalidated in conjunction with a tomato metabolism study, has undergone a successful independent laboratory validation trial, and was successfully validated by the EPA Analytical Chemistry Laboratory using peanut nutmeats and cottonseed. In general, the analytical method has a limit of detection of 0.005 ppm and a limit of quantitation of 0.01 ppm in crops. 3. Magnitude of residues. An adequate number of field trials has been conducted on tomatoes and peppers to determine lactofen residues resulting from the application of lactofen at the maximum proposed use rate. i. Tomato: In five ( 5) residue trials conducted in Florida, residues of lactofen were each < 0.01 ppm in/ on tomatoes harvested 30 days following 2 3 applications of lactofen at 0.5 pounds active ingredient per acre ( lbs. a. i./ A). All applications were made either pre transplant or via a shielded ground spray to tomato row middles at 14 67 day intervals. In a single residue trial conducted in Florida, residues of lactofen were < 0.01 in/ on tomatoes harvested 30 days following 2 applications of lactofen at 2.5 lbs. a. i./ A ( 5x rate). Since no residues of lactofen were detected in samples treated at the 5x rate, a tomato processing study was not conducted. ii. Peppers: In three ( 3) residue trials conducted in Florida ( 2 bell and 1 non bell), residues of lactofen were each < 0.01 ppm in/ on peppers harvested 30 days following 2 applications of lactofen at 0.5 lbs. a. i./ A. All applications were made either pre transplant or via a shielded ground spray to pepper row middles at 46 67 day intervals. All these data support the proposed tolerance for lactofen in/ on vegetable, fruiting, Crop Group 8 and okra at 0.01 ppm. No separate tolerances are needed for tomato processed commodities. The number of field trials conducted ( 5 tomato, 3 pepper) and the location of the trials ( northern Florida) support a product registration that is geographically limited to the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Lactofen has very low acute toxicity. The acute oral LD 50 is 5.96 g/ kg b. w. ( Tox Category IV), the acute dermal LD 50 is > 2.0 g/ kg b. w. ( Tox Category III) and the acute inhalation LD 50 is > 6.3 mg/ L ( Tox Category IV). Lactofen is not a skin sensitizer but is a very slight dermal irritant. 2. Genotoxicty. Lactofen has very little mutagenic or genotoxic activity. While a positive mutagenic response was reported in one trial of a Salmonella typhimurium/ mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay, this response was not observed in a repeat assay. In addition, lactofen did not induce chromosomal aberrations, unscheduled DNA synthesis or inhibit DNA repair. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Reproduction and teratology studies indicate that adverse effects, including embryotoxicity, occur only at doses that are also maternally toxic. Since lactofen causes effects only at levels which also produce systemic toxicity, the compound is not a reproductive hazard. i. Rat Reproduction: In a 2 generation reproduction study in rats, decreased pup weight and decreased absolute and relative weights of the spleen were first reported at approximately 26.2 mg/ kg/ day ( based on dose administered to the parental group). The same dose level elicited mortality and decreased male fertility in the parental groups. The NOEL for both systemic and reproductive toxicity in this study was 2.6 mg/ kg/ day. ii. Rat Developmental: In the developmental toxicity study in rats, effects were observed at the 150 mg/ kg/ day dose level consisting of decreases in fetal weight as well as skeletal abnormalities. This dose level also elicited signs of toxicity in the parental group. The NOEL for this study was 50 mg/ kg/ day. iii. Rabbit Developmental: Two developmental toxicity studies were conducted in rabbits. In the first study, pregnant rabbits were administered oral doses of 0, 5, 15 or 50 mg/ kg bw/ day lactofen technical on days 6 18 of gestation. Maternal toxicity ( clinical signs and reduced weight gain) and developmental effects ( increased embryonic death, decreased litter size and increased post implantation loss) were reported at 15 and 50 mg/ kg. The Agency concluded that the data were insufficient to establish a clear NOEL. A second rabbit developmental toxicity study was therefore conducted in which pregnant rabbits were exposed to 0, 1, 4 or 20 mg/ kg bw/ day oral doses on days 6 18 of gestation. Maternal toxicity ( reduced food consumption) was observed at 20 mg/ kg bw/ day, but no developmental effects were observed at any dose. Therefore, the maternal NOEL was 4 mg/ kg bw/ day and the developmental NOEL was greater than 20 mg/ kg bw/ day. 4. Subchronic toxicity. i. Rats 4 Week: Male and female rats were fed diets containing lactofen technical at concentrations of 0, 200, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 ppm for four weeks. A slight increase in spleen weight was the basis for a LOEL of 200 ppm ( lowest dose tested). At doses of 1,000 ppm or higher, the following findings were reported: clinical signs of toxicity; decreased RBC, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and increased WBC; increased relative liver and spleen weights; and necrosis and pigmentation of hepatocytes. At 10,000 ppm, severe toxic signs were observed by day 7 and all animals were dead or killed in extremis by day 11. Hypocellularity of the spleen, thymus and bone marrow was also observed in animals exposed to 10,000 ppm. ii. Rats 3 Month: lactofen technical was fed to male and female rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 40, 200, and 1,000 ppm for 13 weeks. Histopathological changes in the liver and significant changes in clinical chemistry associated with the liver were observed in rats exposed to 1,000 ppm dosage. Decreased RBC, hemoglobin and hematocrit values were also observed at 1,000 ppm. The NOEL in this study was 200 ppm ( 14.1 mg/ kg/ day). iii. Dogs 4 week: In a range finding study, lactofen technical was fed in the diet of dogs at 0, 1,000, 3,000, and 10,000 ppm for four weeks. Toxic effects noted in dogs fed 10,000 ppm included decreased RBC count and hemocrit and increased BUN and SGPT. Food palatability problems led to greatly decreased feed consumption at higher dosages. The NOEL was 1,000 ppm ( 0.79 mg/ kg/ day). iv. Mice 3 Month: Groups of male and female mice were fed diets containing lactofen technical at concentrations of 0, 40, 200, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 for 13 weeks. At week five, the dosage of the 40 ppm groups was increased to 2,000 ppm. Treatment related mortality occurred at dosages above 1,000 ppm. The LOEL was 200 ppm ( 28.6 mg/ kg/ day) based on: increased WBC; decreased hematocrit, hemoglobin and RBC; increased alkaline phosphatase, SGOT, SGPT, cholesterol and total serum protein levels; increased weights or enlargement of the spleen, liver, adrenals, heart and kidney; histopathological changes of the liver, kidney, thymus, spleen, ovaries and testes. In general, effects were slight in the 200 ppm groups, and moderate to severe in the 1,000 ppm groups. 5. Chronic toxicity. Lactofen causes adverse health effects when administered to animals for extended periods of time. These effects include proliferative changes in the liver, spleen, and kidney; hematological changes; and blood biochemistry changes. i. Mouse 18 Month: In a dietary 18 month oncogenicity study in mice at dosages of 10, 50 and 250 ppm lactofen technical, an increase in liver adenomas and carcinomas, cataracts and liver pigmentation was observed at 250 ppm, a dose that clearly exceeded the MTD. The lowest dose, 10 ppm ( 1.4 mg/ kg/ day), was the LOEL based on increased liver weight and hepatocytomegaly. ii. Rat 24 Month: In a 2 year chronic feeding/ oncogenicity study of lactofen technical in rats at dosages of 0, 500, 1,000 and 2,000 ppm in the diet, an increase in liver neoplastic nodules and foci of cellular alteration was observed in both sexes at 2,000 ppm. The NOEL for systemic toxicity is 500 ppm ( 2 mg/ kg/ day) based on kidney and liver pigmentation. iii. Dog 12 Month: In a 1 year study in dogs exposed to 40, 200, and 1,000 ( week 1 17) or 3,000 ppm ( week 18 52) lactofen technical in their diet, the NOEL was determined to be 200 ppm ( 0.79 mg/ kg/ day) based on renal dysfunction and decreased RBC, hemoglobin hematocrit and cholesterol observed at 1,000/ 3,000 ppm. iv. Carcinogenicity: EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee ( CARC) has recently revised the cancer classification of lactofen based on several mechanistic studies showing that lactofen oncogenicity occurs via a peroxisome proliferation mechanism [ Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Lactofen; Federal Register of January 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 4129) ( OPP 2003 0294; FRL 7336 9)]. Lactofen is now classified under EPA's 1999 Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines as " likely to be carcinogenic to humans at high enough doses to cause these biochemical and histopathological effects ( peroxisome proliferation) in the livers of rodents but unlikely to be carcinogenic at doses below those causing these changes". Lactofen is a threshold carcinogen with the Margin of Exposure ( MOE) calculated using the NOAEL of 2 ppm ( 0.3 mg/ kg/ day) from a special 7 week rodent study which evaluated peroxisome proliferation in the livers of rats and mice. In this study, mice were exposed to lactofen at 0, 2, 10, 50, or 250 ppm. After 7 weeks of treatment, the mice were sacrificed and the livers examined biochemically and pathologically. Dose dependent increases were observed in relative liver weights, in two liver peroxisomal enzymes, catalase and acyl CoA oxidase, and in carnitine acetyltransferase. Histological evaluations also revealed dose dependent increases in nuclear enlargement, cytoplasmic eosinophilia, hypertrophy and peroxisomal staining in livers. These results not only show dose dependent increases in the parameters measured, but more importantly, a non linear doseresponse curve with a NOAEL. The NOAEL of 2 ppm ( 0.3 mg/ kg/ day) was based on increase in relative liver weight, carnitine acetyl transferase, and palmitoyl CoA oxidate at a LOAEL of 10 ppm ( 1.5 mg/ kg/ day). Similar effects were seen in rats, exposed to lactofen at 2000 ppm for 8 weeks. No endpoints were selected since the rats were exposed at only one high dose level. 6. Animal metabolism. In a rat metabolism study, lactofen was shown to metabolize to acifluorfen, 5[ 2 chloro 4( trifluoromethyl) phenoxy] 2 nitrobenzoate, which was eliminated via both urine and feces. While lactofen was the primary compound found in the feces, acifluorfen accounted for > 90% of the radioactivity in the urine. Negligible amounts of the administered radioactivity were found in any tissue with less than 0.8% of the administered radioactivity being found in the liver ( one of the main target organs). 7. Metabolite toxicology. Acifluorfen is also a hydrolytic metabolite of lactofen. The sodium salt of this benzoic acid is the registered herbicide, sodium acifluorfen. The chronic population adjusted dose ( c PAD) for acifluorfen is 0.004 mg/ kg/ day for infants, children and females 13 50 years old and 0.013 mg/ kg/ day for other population subgroups. EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee ( CARC) has recently revised the cancer classification of acifluorfen based on mechanistic studies showing that acifluorfen oncogenicity occurs via a peroxisome proliferation mechanism [ Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for the pesticide active ingredient sodium acifluorfen; Federal Register of January 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 4136) ( OPP 2003 0293; FRL 7337 1)]. Acifluorfen is now classified under EPA's 1999 Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines as " likely to be carcinogenic to humans at high enough doses to cause these biochemical and histopathological effects ( peroxisome proliferation) in the livers of rodents but unlikely to be carcinogenic at doses below those causing these changes". The CARC further recommended using a MOE approach for estimating human cancer risk from exposure to acifluorfen. A NOAEL of 25 ppm ( 1.25 mg/ kg/ day) was recommended for calculating the MOE. Because lactofen and its metabolites are not retained in the body, the potential for acute toxicity from in situ formed metabolites is low. The potential for chronic toxicity of lactofen metabolites has been adequately addressed by an extensive battery of lactofen chronic toxicity testing. 8. Endocrine Disruption: No special studies to investigate the potential for estrogenic or other endocrine effects of lactofen have been performed. However, a large and detailed toxicology database exists for the compound including studies acceptable to the Agency in all required categories. These studies include evaluations of reproduction and reproductive toxicity and detailed pathology and histology of endocrine organs following repeated or longterm exposure. These studies are considered capable of revealing endocrine effects and no such effects were observed.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate exposure to potential lactofen residues in/ on the following crops: soybeans and snap beans ( existing tolerances); cotton and peanuts ( tolerances pending); and fruiting vegetables ( tolerances proposed in the current petition). The Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System ( CARES) Version 2.0 was used to conduct this assessment. This analysis utilized tolerance level residues, consumption data from USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996, 1998 ( USDA, 2000), and the latest USEPA guidance ( USEPA, 1999 and USEPA, 2000). The reported dietary exposure values are based on 100% crop treated. i. Food. a. Acute No endpoint has been established to assess the acute risk of exposure to lactofen for the general U. S. population. An acute Population Adjusted Dose ( a PAD) has, however, been established for females of child bearing age ( 13 50 years old). This a PAD was calculated to be 0.17 mg/ kg/ day using the NOEL from the rat developmental study, 50 mg/ kg/ day, an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for inter species extrapolation ( 10x) and intra species variation ( 10x) and an additional FQPA safety factor of 3. The potential acute exposure from food to females 13 50 years old was calculated to be 0.07% of the a PAD. b. Chronic The NOEL from the chronic oral toxicity study in dogs, 0.79 mg/ kg/ day, was selected as the chronic oral toxicity endpoint. Based on this NOEL and an uncertainty factor of 100, the Chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( c PAD) for lactofen has been set at 0.008 mg/ kg/ day. The chronic dietary exposure estimate of lactofen residues in food at the 100th percentile was calculated to be, at most, 0.68% of the c PAD with a MOE of 14,469. The population subgroup with the highest exposure was children 1 2 years old. c. Cancer Cancer margins of exposure, calculated using the 0.3 mg/ kg/ day endpoint from the 7 week rodent study which evaluated peroxisome proliferation in the liver of rats and mice, exceed 5,400 for all population subgroups. The 0.3 mg/ kg/ day endpoint is considered to be protective of cancer effects because the changes in liver enzymes and histopathology are believed to precede liver tumor formation for a peroxisome proliferation mode of action. The Agency, therefore, has no concern for cancer risks associated with exposure to lactofen in food. ii. Drinking water. Lactofen has a low probability to contaminate drinking water because it has a short half life ( three days or less) and high binding potential ( K oc > 1000). The HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( MARC) has concluded that the residues of concern in drinking water are the degradates acifluorfen and amino acifluorfen. Insufficient information is available to estimate the amino acifluorfen concentration in water, but it is likely to be less than that of acifluorfen. Laboratory studies have shown that acifluorfen reaches its maximum concentration of 53.3% of applied lactofen at 7 days following application and it is most likely to form under the soil surface. Thus, the formed acifluorfen is not subject to drift, erosion, or runoff forces that contribute to surface water contamination. Surface water, however, could be contaminated with acifluorfen from lactofen applications via spray drift. The registrant also has conducted two prospective groundwater studies which showed that neither lactofen nor acifluorfen ( from lactofen applications) contaminate groundwater.

To assess the acute, chronic, and cancer risks associated with exposure to lactofen and acifluorfen ( from applications of lactofen) in surface water, OPP has calculated drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) and Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations ( EDWCs) [ Tolerance Reassessment of Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Lactofen; Federal Register of January 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 4129) ( OPP 2003 0294; FRL 7336 9)]. EDWCs that are above the corresponding DWLOC exceed the Agency's level of concern.

Dietary Exposure and Risk to Lactofen from Drinking Water Exposure EDWC ( ppb) DWLOC ( ppb) Surface Water Groundwater Acute 0.39 0.006 5100 Chronic ( non cancer) 0.008 0.006 80 Cancer 0.007 0.006 105 Dietary Exposure and Risk to Acifluorfen from Drinking Water Exposure EDWC ( ppb) DWLOC ( ppb) Surface Water Groundwater Acute 10 3.7 600 Chronic ( non cancer) 2.4 3.7 40 Cancer 1.3 3.7 455 The EDWC values for all exposures are less than the corresponding DWLOC values; therefore, the Agency has no concern for the aggregate risk of lactofen and acifluorfen from lactofen in drinking water. 2. Non dietary exposure. Lactofen is proposed only for agricultural uses and no homeowner or turf uses. Thus, no non dietary risk assessment is needed.

D. Cumulative Effects Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) requires that the Agency must consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." Available information in this context include not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. For most pesticides, although the Agency has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way. There are other pesticidal compounds that are structurally related to lactofen and have similar effects on animals. In consideration of potential cumulative effects of lactofen and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by lactofen would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds. Thus, only the potential risks of lactofen have been considered in this assessment of aggregate exposure and effects. Valent will submit information for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of lactofen consistent with the schedule established by EPA at 62 Federal Register 42020 ( Aug. 4, 1997) and other subsequent EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

E. Safety Determination Water is not expected to be a significant source of exposure for lactofen, as it degrades quickly in the environment to numerous degradates, including acifluorfen. Estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs) for lactofen and acifluorfen are well below the Drinking Water Levels of Comparison ( DWLOCs) for chronic, acute, and cancer risk. Therefore, the only significant source of human exposure to lactofen is in food. 1. U. S. population. i. Acute Risk. No endpoint has been established to assess the acute risk of exposure to lactofen for the general U. S. population. An a PAD has, however, been established for females of child bearing age ( 13 50 years old) and it has been estimated that the potential acute exposure from food to this population subgroup will the utilize 0.07% of the a PAD. The Agency has no cause for concern if total acute residue contribution is less than 100% of the a PAD. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to this subpopulation from aggregate, acute exposure to lactofen residues. ii. Chronic Risk. The potential chronic exposure from food to the U. S. Population and various non child/ infant population subgroups will utilize at most 0.66% of the c PAD. The Agency has no cause for concern if total chronic residue contribution is less than 100% of the c PAD. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U. S. Population from aggregate, chronic exposure to lactofen residues. iii. Cancer Risk. Cancer margins of exposure, calculated using the 0.3 mg/ kg/ day endpoint from the 7 week rodent study which evaluated peroxisome proliferation in the liver of rats and mice, exceed 5,600 for all non child/ infant population subgroups. The Agency, therefore, has no concern for cancer risks associated with exposure of the general population to lactofen in food. 2. Infants and children. i. Safety Factor for Infants and Children. Reproduction and developmental effects have been found in toxicology studies for lactofen but only at levels that were also maternally toxic. This indicates that developing animals are not more sensitive than adults. ii. Chronic Risk. The potential chronic exposure from food to children 1 2 years old ( the most highly exposed child/ infant subgroup) will utilize 0.68% of the c PAD. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate, chronic exposure to flumioxazin residues. iii. Cancer Risk. Cancer margins of exposure, calculated using the 0.3 mg/ kg/ day endpoint from the 7 week rodent study which evaluated peroxisome proliferation in the liver of rats and mice, exceed 5,400 for all child/ infant population subgroups. The Agency, therefore, has no concern for cancer risks associated with exposure of infants and children to lactofen in food.

F. International Tolerances. There are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits ( MRLs) established for lactofen on fruiting vegetable commodities, so there is no conflict between this proposed action and international residue limits.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55214-55215]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0807]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Railway Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1, at
Seattle, WA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate heavy
maintenance on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain
in the down, or closed position, during the maintenance period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. on November 5, 2013 to
11:59 p.m. on November 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0807] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Lieutenant Commander Steven Fischer,
Thirteenth District Bridge Program Office, Coast Guard; telephone
(206)220-7277<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNSF Railway has requested that the draw of
the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1
(Ballard-Salmon Bay), be locked in the closed position and not be
required to open for the passage of vessels on 4 separate days during a
9 day period to facilitate heavy maintenance on the bridge. The bridge
provides 43 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water while in
the closed position. Under normal operations this bridge opens on
signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5 and 33 CFR 117.1051(c). The
deviation period is from 9 a.m. on November 5, 2013 to 11:59 p.m. on
November 14, 2013. This deviation allows the draw span of the BNSF
Railway Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1, to
remain in the closed position and to not open for maritime traffic from
9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on November 5, 2013, and 9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on
November 7, 2013, and 9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on November 12, 2013, and 9
a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on

November 14, 2013. These time frames were selected because it
corresponds with the closure of the Army Corps of Engineering Hiram M.
Chittenden lock immediately upstream or inland of the bridge on the
Lake Washington Ship Canal. This stretch of the Lake Washington Ship
Canal experiences heavy waterway usage and is utilized by vessels
ranging from commercial tug and barge to pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may
do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 27, 2013.
Daryl R. Peloquin,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Acting Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-21940 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P