 Judy Graham < judy_ graham@ bellsouth. net>

12/ 29/ 2005 09: 52 AM To Erv Pickell/ NEIC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject RFG Amendements 12/ 15/ 05 70 FR74572 80.83( g)( 3)

Erv,

My clients and I have serious concerns regarding this paragraph. It requires an entity to use their independent lab on a ship of GTAB if they are going to use the GTAB to make RFG regardless of whether the ship could be certified as GTAB.

One concern is that often multiple parties are on ship  each importing an amount of GTAB. If there were three parties, then it could be that three different independent labs to run the same sample  a very costly and unnecessary undertaking.

Secondly, GTAB often goes into several different tanks. Therefore, it could be that a small portion of the GTAB end up in an RFG batch down the road that the entity did not anticipate.

Thirdly, the entity probably does not know what it is going to do with every last drop of GTAB on that ship ahead of time. It would essentially force the entity to use its independent lab on all GTAB just in case it ended up in an RFG batch.

I have often told my clients to use their independent lab on a GTAB batch whose properties would allow it to be certified as an RFG import in case they change their mind and would like to have the batch or part of the batch as an RFG import. But it makes absolutely no sense to require a GTAB batch to be sampled and tested by their independent lab when the GTAB properties are not even going to be used and if the GTAB is used to produce RFG, the blender/ refiner portion of the entity will have to use its blender/ refiner independent lab to certify the batch.

I would like you to consider revising this part. You can consider this an adverse comment prior to February 13, 2006 and a request to amend this portion.

Judy Graham


[Federal Register: July 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 42374]
[DOCID:fr26jy06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-82-000]

PPM Energy, Inc., Complainant v. PacifiCorp, Respondent; Notice
of Complaint Filing

July 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 14, 2006, pursuant to the sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, PPM Energy, Inc. (Complainant)
filed a complaint against PacifiCorp, alleging that PacifiCorp
improperly assessed the Complainant charges for having allegedly used
PacifiCorp's transmission system without authorization since December
2004. The Complainant also has requested fast track processing for this
complaint.
    The Complainant states that copies of the complaint were served on
contacts for PacifiCorp as listed on the Commission's Corporate
Officials List.
    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, 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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 14, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11887 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63290-63291]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2144-000]

City of Seattle; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project
Operation

    On September 29, 2009, the City of Seattle, licensee for the
Boundary Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's
regulations thereunder. The Boundary Hydroelectric Project is located
on the Pend Oreille River in Pend Oreille County, Washington.
    The license for Project No. 2144 was issued for a period ending
September 30, 2011. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2144 is issued to
the City of Seattle for a period effective October 1, 2011 through
September 30, 2012, or until the issuance of a new license for the
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on
or before September

30, 2012, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an
annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed
automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless
the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the City of Seattle is authorized to continue
operation of the Boundary Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the
Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

    Dated: October 4, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26233 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30179-30181]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0337]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) from mile 853.2 to mile
854.2. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, property, and
infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with
a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP). Deviation from the safety zone may be requested and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the
COTP or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 17,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0337 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UMR Upper Mississippi River

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard was not notified of
the event until April 19, 2016. After full review of the event details,
the Coast Guard determined that action is needed to protect people and
property from the safety hazards associated with a fireworks display on
the Upper Mississippi River. It would be impracticable to publish a
NPRM because the safety zone must be established on June 17, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. On June 17, 2016, a fireworks display will take place on the
Upper Mississippi River between mile 853.2 and mile 854.2 for the 150th
Celebration of General Mills. The COTP has determined that potential
hazards associated with the fireworks display will be a safety concern
for anyone within the area that is designated as the safety zone. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the
fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on
June 17, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the
Upper Mississippi River between mile 853.2 and mile 854.2. The safety
zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone that will be
enforced for a limited time period. During the enforcement period,
vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the
safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or other
designated representative. Based on the location and short duration of
the enforcement period, this rule does not pose a significant
regulatory impact. Additionally, notice of this safety zone or any
changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

Deviation from this rule may be requested from the COTP and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately one hour that will
prohibit entry between miles 853.2 and 854.2 on the Upper Mississippi
River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0337 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0337  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River 853.2 to
854.2; Minneapolis, MN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Upper Mississippi River between miles 853.2 and 854.2, extending
the entire width of the river.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River in the enforcement
of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16 or through Coast Guard Sector
Upper Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule is effective and will be enforced
from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 17, 2016.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's representative
will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the
enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the
planned schedule.

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
M. L. Malloy,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-11569 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45359-45362]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0735; Product Identifier 2018-NE-26-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
International Aero Engines (IAE) PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM,
PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and
PW1122G-JM turbofan engines with certain low-pressure turbine (LPT)
1st- and 3rd-stage disks installed. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of manufacturing defects found on delivered LPT 1st- and 3rd-
stage disks. This proposed AD would require removing the LPT 1st- or
3rd-stage disk from service and replacing with a part eligible for
installation. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 22,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2018-
0735; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington MA, 01803; phone:
781-238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0735;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-26-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We received a report that multiple LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks
were delivered before the ingot lot was rejected due to material
inclusion. The suspect LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks may include defects
that may have not been discovered during inspections. This condition,
if not addressed, could result in uncontained LPT 1st- or 3rd-stage
disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing from service and replacing
the LPT 1st- or 3rd-stage disk with a part eligible for installation.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 0 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove and replace LPT 1st- or 3rd-     0 work-hours x $85 per          $210,000        $210,000              $0
 stage disk.                             hour = $0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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):

International Aero Engines: Docket No. FAA-2018-0735; Product
Identifier 2018-NE-26-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 22, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to International Aero Engines (IAE) PW1133G-JM,
PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM,
PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM turbofan engines with a low-
pressure turbine (LPT) 3rd-stage disk with a serial number (S/N)
listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD or an LPT 1st-stage
disk with an S/N listed in Figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD,
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of manufacturing defects found
on delivered

LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the LPT 1st- or 3rd-stage disk. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in uncontained LPT 1st- or 3rd-stage
disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Remove from service the LPT 1st- or 3rd-stage disk within 30
days after the effective date of this AD, or as identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, whichever occurs later, and
replace with a part eligible for installation:
    (1) Remove the LPT 3rd-stage disk with an S/N listed in Figure 1
to paragraph (g) of this AD at the next shop visit, not to exceed
4,800 cycles since new.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE18.002

    (2) Remove the LPT 1st-stage disk with an S/N listed in Figure 2
to paragraph (g) of this AD at next shop visit, not to exceed 2,240
cycles since new.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE18.003

(h) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance
does not constitute an engine shop visit.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,

send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You
may email your request to: [email protected].
    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 29, 2018.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19174 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                            Attachment E
                             Consultation Summary

                              Office of Pesticide Program ICR Renewal

                                       Pesticide Data Call-In
                          (EPA ICR No. 2288.04; OMB Control No. 2070-0174)

  Consultation Questions

 Publicly Available Data

 Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? RESPONSE: Yes sometimes publicly available or with another agency, but often not.

 If yes, where can you find the data? (Does your answer indicate a true duplication, or does the input indicate that certain data elements are available, but that they don't meet our data needs very well?) RESPONSE: Literature searches may provide publicly available data as well as references to where data may be available with other agencies, including state or foreign governments. However, it is likely that this would not be easy for the Agency to conduct on all ingredients undergoing a re- evaluation and necessitating new data to conduct risk assessments.

  Frequency of Collection

 	Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome? RESPONSE: Possibly but unlikely. The key determinant in the DCI process is that the burden of production of new information for risk assessment is applied to all registrants of the subject ingredient(s) equally, at the same time, leveling the playing field such that one registrant is not forced to make changes or submit additional data when others who came before are not also subject to the same with the same response deadlines.

 Clarity of Instructions

 	The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 	Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit such data? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions? RESPONSE: The directions are generally clear with clearly defined response due dates.

 	Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? RESPONSE: Yes, 40 CFR Parts 167, Subpart E, and 169 outline the requirements for maintenance of books and records of pesticide production and distribution under FIFRA Section 7, while 40 CFR Part 160, Subpart J, outlines the requirements for maintenance of documentation supporting studies submitted to EPA in support of registration. Interestingly, there is no requirement in the statute or the regulations to maintain any

           records concerning correspondence, including approval or rejection letters, for any active or cancelled registration.

 	Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical, and easy to complete? RESPONSE: EPA has formatting requirements for studies (currently PRN 2011-3) that are sufficient to meet this.

 	Are there forms associated with this process? Do you use them? Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete? RESPONSE; DCI Forms 6300-3 and 6300-4 are clear and now can be filled out electronically through the CDX PSP without the need to physically print out, fill out, and sign the documents, which is most helpful. It would be useful if other forms could also be prepared and submitted electronically. As to Forms 8570-36 and 8570-37, they are in essence useless as they cannot be filled out strictly as "forms" but must then be formatted into a study per PRN 2011-3 and submitted thusly. If the Agency truly wishes for these forms to be used as forms, the requirement to then incorporate them into a "study" for submission needs to be reconsidered and eliminated.

 Electronic Reporting and Record keeping

       The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

 	What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of web forms@/XML based submissions via the Agency's Internet site and magnetic media- based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc. Would you be interested in pursuing electronic reporting? RESPONSE: Registrants submit CBI right now through the CDX PSP so this is not accurate. What would be helpful is if OPP would allow electronic signatures (generated through CDX or similar) on forms other than 6300-3 and 6300-4, which are already doing that. (Section 7 reporting through CDX SSTS also generates an electronic signature upon filing through the portal.)

 	Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format? RESPONSE: Yes, in PDF format.

Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of CBI- related security concerns at this time,

 	Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette (CD or DVD) than on paper? RESPONSE: As answered above, this is not an issue anymore as CBI can be and is being submitted electronically through the CDX PSP.

 	What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information? RESPONSE: See above.

 Burden and Costs

 	Are the labor rates accurate? RESPONSE: I haven't had an opportunity to fully vet those costs and can provide no comment on the accuracy.

 	The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct? RESPONSE: That's most likely correct, but there is the possibility that for some "special studies," specialized equipment or other capital purchases (potentially including construction, but not generally) may be necessary to address them.

 	Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates. RESPONSE: I think they are reasonable but have not fully vetted the time estimates.

 	Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed? RESPONSE: I think these are likely reasonable as is.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59089-59090]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24521]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0603; FRL-9470-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Amendments to the Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Delaware. This SIP revision amends
the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0603 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0603, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0603. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401,
Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2011, the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a SIP
revision that amends the control of VOC emissions from offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing (7 DE Admin Code 1124,
Section 47.0). The purpose of this SIP revision is to conform to the
new Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) issued by EPA.

I. Background

    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires all ozone nonattainment
areas, including Delaware, to update relevant regulations for
reasonably available control technology (RACT) controls for emission
sources covered by EPA's CTG and to submit the regulations to EPA as
SIP revisions. Section 47.0 (Offset Lithographic Printing) under 7 DE
Admin Code 1124 (Control of VOC Emissions) was originally developed in
1994 after EPA issued a CTG in 1993 for the control of VOC emissions
from the offset lithographic printing industry. (See docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0536 for the 1993 CTG and 62 FR 26399, May 14, 1997 for 7 DE Admin
Code 1124, Section 47.0). In September 2006 (EPA-453/R-06-002), EPA
updated its CTG for the offset lithographic printing industry by adding
control requirements for letterpress printing operations. DNREC revised
Section 47.0 (Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing) in
early 2010 to reflect the new requirements in EPA's 2006 CTG.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    DNREC's SIP revision to Section 47.0 that was submitted on May 25,
2011, expands the control of VOC emissions to include letterpress
printing presses and set up a new and more stringent 95 percent
reduction standard for those control systems installed after April 11,
2011 (effective date of the SIP revision). Amendments to Section 47.0
also include specifying a one-year transition period for facilities to
comply with the new requirements and providing flexibility for
facilities to locate unspecified temperature monitoring devices for
control systems. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for
proposing to approve this SIP revision may be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0603.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Delaware SIP revision for the
control of VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing and
letterpress printing (7 DE Admin Code 1124, Section 47.0) submitted on
May 25, 2011. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as

meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Delaware's offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing, does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

     Dated: September 6, 2011.
James W. Newsom,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-24521 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


P-21-0005 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-21-0005 Sanitized Premanufacture Notice (linked)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-21-0005 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6660]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02248]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 204-2, OMB Control No. 3235-0278, SEC File No. 270-215.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 204-2'' (17
CFR 275.204-2) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80b-1). Rule 204-2 sets forth the requirements for maintaining and
preserving specified books and records. The collection of information
under rule 204-2 is necessary for the Commission staff to use in its
examination and oversight program. The respondents to the collection of
information are investment advisers registered with us. The Commission
staff estimates that the total reporting and recordkeeping burden of
the collection of information for each respondent is approximately
181.45 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 29, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02248 Filed 2-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44983]
[DOCID:fr01au08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1106-001]

MATL LLP; Notice of Filing

July 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 23, 2008, MATL LLP tendered for filing a
supplement amending their June 13, 2008 filing. The June 13, 2008
filing changed the creditworthiness procedures set for in Attachment L
of its Open Access Transmission Tariff in the above-referenced
proceeding.
    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, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17629 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3228 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation/ OAQPS/ ESD 2. OMB control number b.

None a. ___ ___ ___ ___  ___ ___ ___ ___ 2 0 6 0 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: ______/______/______ c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: ______/______

7. Title National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/ Phenolic Resins 8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable)

EPA ICR 1869.02 9. Keywords: Air Pollution Control, Intergovernmental Relations, Amino/ Phenolic Resin production operations, reporting and recordkeeping, requirements, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection 10. Abstract: Respondents are owners and operators of Amino/ Phenolic Resin production operations. Respondents must submit one time reports of initial performance tests and semiannual reports of noncompliance. Recordkeeping of parameters related to air pollution control technologies is required. The reports and records will be used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ___ Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. ___ Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local, or Tribal Governments 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 40 b. Total annual responses 80 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20 % c. Total annual hours requested 32,252 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 32,252 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 32,252 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 80 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 80 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 80 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 80 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ____ Application for benefits e. ____ Program planning or management b. ____ Program evaluation f. ____ Research c. ____ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. ____ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. G On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5.

Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biennially 8.

Other ( describe) initial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer question regarding the content of this submission)

Name: John Schaefer, OAQPS, ESD, OCG ( MD 13)

Phone: ( 919) 541 0296 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3):

( I) Why the information is being collected;

( ii) Use of information;

( iii) Burden estimate;

( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

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

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

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

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Director, Regulatory Information Division Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


 [Federal Register Volume 81, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)] [Notices] [Page 17752] [FR Doc No: 2016-07224]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Correction

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 81 FR 17225, March  28, 2016.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, March 30,  2016 at 10 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March  30, 2016 at 10 a.m., has been changed to Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at  10 a.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to  ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,  please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    March 25, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-07224 Filed 3-28-16; 4:15 pm]  BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74417-74418]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-98-000]

Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability
of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Transco to Charleston
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Transco to Charleston Project (Project), proposed by Dominion Carolina
Gas Transmission, LLC (Dominion) in the above-referenced docket.
Dominion requests authorization to construct and operate new pipeline
and compressor station facilities in South Carolina.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The proposed Project includes the following facilities:
     Approximately 55 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in
Spartanburg, Laurens, Newberry, and Greenwood Counties (Moore to
Chappells Pipeline);
     approximately 5 miles of 4-inch-diameter pipeline in
Dillon County (Dillon Pipeline);
     installation of two new 1,400-horsepower (hp) compressor
units at the existing Moore Compressor Station in Spartanburg County;
     construction of a new 3,150-hp compressor station in
Dorchester County (Dorchester Compressor Station);
     conversion of an existing 1,050-hp compressor unit from
standby to base load at the existing Southern Compressor Station in
Aiken County;
     upgrades to the existing Charleston Town Border Station in
Charleston County and to the existing Greenwood Town Border Station in
Greenwood County; and
     associated pipeline support facilities (metering and
regulating stations, pig launcher and receiver assemblies, valves, and
pipeline interconnects).
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and

agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the
Project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are
available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this Project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before November
18, 2016.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference
the Project docket number (CP16-98-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting
brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-
98). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: October 19, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25792 Filed 10-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6462]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-90-001]

KeySpan LNG, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 24, 2006, KeySpan LNG, LP (KLNG)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be effective September
1, 2005:

Substitute Original Sheet No. 74A, Superseding Original Sheet No.
74A.
Original Sheet No. 74B.
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 93, Superseding Second Revised
Sheet No. 93.
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 93A, Superseding First Revised
Sheet No. 93A.

    KLNG states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all
parties designated on the official service list, KLNG's jurisdictional
customers and affected state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  154.210 of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must
serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1706 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual yet concerned consumer of electronic cigarettes to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback. I am sure this proposed extension is reasonable from the time it took the FDA to make such proposals

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and frankly I would like to see its rightful purposes to be heard. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life for numerous reasons that I can state. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation. It would be fair to at least consider this.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 187 (Friday, September 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60456-60458]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21133]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237; FRL-10014-87]

Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD); Final Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) Risk Evaluation; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk
evaluation of Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD). The purpose of
conducting risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable
risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation,
without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors. EPA has
determined that specific conditions of use of HBCD present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. For those
conditions of use for which EPA has found an unreasonable risk, EPA
must take regulatory action to address that unreasonable risk through
risk management measures enumerated in TSCA. EPA has also determined
that specific conditions of use do not present unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. For those conditions of use for
which EPA has found no unreasonable risk to health or the environment,
the Agency's determination is a final Agency action and is issued via
order in the risk evaluation.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237, is available online
at http://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Public Reading Room is closed to visitors
with limited exceptions. The EPA/DC staff continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Dr.
Stan Barone, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7403M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are or may be interested in risk
evaluations of chemical substances under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Since other entities may also be interested in this final risk
evaluation, the EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to ``determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator,
under the conditions of use.'' 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections
6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements
applicable to this process, including provisions that provide
instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the
minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for
public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also
requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best
available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific
evidence and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C.
2625(h), (i), and (k). TSCA section 6(i) directs that a determination
of ``no unreasonable risk'' shall be issued by order and considered to
be a final Agency action, while a determination of ``unreasonable
risk'' is not considered to be a final Agency action. 15 U.S.C.
2605(i).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially

exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15
U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk
evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess available information on
hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical
substance, including information that is relevant to specific risks of
injury to health or the environment and information on relevant
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether
aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that
consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely
duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the
conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific
evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C.
2605(b)(4)(F)(i)-(ii) and (iv)-(v). Each risk evaluation must not
consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    The statute requires that the risk evaluation process be completed
within a specified timeframe and provide an opportunity for public
comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing a final risk
evaluation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4).
    Subsection 5.4.1 of the final risk evaluation for HBCD constitutes
the order required under TSCA section 6(i)(1), and the ``no
unreasonable risk'' determinations in that subsection are considered to
be a final Agency action effective on the date of issuance of the
order. In conducting risk evaluations, ``EPA will determine whether the
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment under each condition of use within the scope of the
risk evaluation. . .'' 40 CFR 702.47. Under EPA's implementing
regulations, ``[a] determination by EPA that the chemical substance,
under one or more of the conditions of use within the scope of the risk
evaluation, does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment will be issued by order and considered to be a final
Agency action, effective on the date of issuance of the order.'' 40 CFR
702.49(d). For purposes of TSCA section 19(a)(1)(A), the date of
issuance of the section 6(i)(1) order for HBCD shall be at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern time (standard or daylight, as appropriate) on the date that is
two weeks after the date when this notice is published in the Federal
Register, which is in accordance with 40 CFR 23.5.

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of the risk evaluation of the
chemical substance identified in Unit II. In this risk evaluation EPA
has made unreasonable risk determinations on some of the conditions of
use within the scope of the risk evaluation for this chemical. For
those conditions of use for which EPA has found an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, EPA must take regulatory action to
address those risks through risk management measures enumerated in 15
U.S.C. 2605(a).
    EPA also is announcing the availability of the information required
to be provided publicly with each risk evaluation, which is available
online at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets identified. 40 CFR
702.51. Specifically, EPA has provided:
     The scope document and problem formulation (in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0735);
     Draft risk evaluation, and final risk evaluation (in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237);
     All notices, determinations, findings, consent agreements,
and orders (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237);
     Any information required to be provided to the Agency
under 15 U.S.C. 2603 (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0735 and Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237);
     A nontechnical summary of the risk evaluation (in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237);
     A list of the studies, with the results of the studies,
considered in carrying out each risk evaluation (Risk Evaluation for
Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD Cluster) in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2019-0237);
     The final peer review report, including the response to
peer review and public comments received during peer review (in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237); and
     Response to public comments received on the draft scope
and the draft risk evaluation (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237).

II. TSCA Risk Evaluation

A. What is EPA's risk evaluation process for existing chemicals under
TSCA?

    The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing
chemical review process under TSCA, following prioritization and before
risk management. As this chemical is one of the first ten chemical
substances undergoing risk evaluation, the chemical substance was not
required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016)
(FRL-9956-47). The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to
determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use,
including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate
both hazard and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors,
use reasonably available information and approaches in a manner that is
consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the use of the best
available science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight of
scientific evidence.
    The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by
rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702
and summarized on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule on
procedures for risk evaluation (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-
38), the specific regulatory process set out in 40 CFR part 702,
subpart B is being followed for the first ten chemical substances
undergoing risk evaluation to the maximum extent practicable.
    Prior to the publication of this final risk evaluation, a draft
risk evaluation was subject to peer review and public comment. EPA
reviewed the report from the peer review committee and public comments
and has amended the risk evaluation in response to these comments as
appropriate. The public comments, peer review report, and EPA's
response to comments is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237. Prior
to the publication of the draft risk evaluation, EPA made available the
scope and problem formulation, and solicited public input on uses and
exposure. EPA's documents and the public comments are in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0735. Additionally, information about the scope,
problem formulation, and draft risk evaluation phases of the TSCA risk
evaluation for this chemical is at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-cyclic-aliphatic-bromide-cluster-hbcd.

B. What is Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD Cluster)?

    The cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster chemicals, including
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), are flame retardants. Other uses include
use as a component of solder and use in automobile replacement parts.
EPA has not identified reasonably available information to suggest that
HBCD is currently domestically manufactured in

any quantity. Companies have the ability to import the chemical in low
volumes below the CDR reporting threshold.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-21133 Filed 9-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 32340]
[DOCID:fr05jn06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-8-000]

Discussions With Utility and Railroad Representatives on Market
and Reliability Matters; Notice of Discussions

May 30, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will meet with
utility and railroad representatives to discuss railroad coal-delivery
matters and their impact on markets and electric reliability. The
meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2006, in the Commission Meeting Room
(Room 2C) at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 at or around 1
p.m. (EDT) and will conclude in mid-afternoon. (The starting time may
be delayed by the Open Commission Meeting taking place that morning.)
    All interested persons are invited to attend. There is no pre-
registration and there is no fee to attend this meeting.
    The Commission is inviting utility and railroad representatives to
discuss market and reliability matters. Additional information will be
issued in subsequent notices.
    A transcript of the meeting will be available immediately for a fee
from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646). It will be
available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the
events calendar approximately one week after the meeting.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Questions about the meeting should be directed to Saida Shaalan at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8670 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54247-54248]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG 2018-0473]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the existing drawbridge operating
regulation for the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge across Anacostia
River, mile 1.2, in Washington, DC. The modified rule allows the
existing drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and
is necessary to accommodate the construction of a new fixed bridge on
an alignment 18 feet south of the existing drawbridge, and the removal
of the existing drawbridge.

DATES: This rule is effective November 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2018-0473 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Martin A. Bridges, Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb),
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On February 2, 2018, we published a notice of temporary deviation
from drawbridge regulation entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Anacostia River, Washington, DC,'' in the Federal Register (83 FR
4845). The temporary deviation was necessary to accommodate the
construction and replacement of the existing Frederick Douglass
Memorial Bridge with a fixed bridge on an alignment 18 feet south of
the existing drawbridge. This temporary deviation allowed the existing
drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during
construction of the new fixed bridge and was effective from 6 a.m. on
February 2, 2018, through 6 a.m. on August 1, 2018.
    On June 25, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of public rule
making entitled Drawbridge Regulation, Anacostia River, Washington, DC,
in the Federal Register (83 FR 32602). We received no comments on this
rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C 499.
The Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge across the Anacostia River, mile
1.2, in Washington, DC has a vertical clearance of 40 feet above mean
high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance
in the open-to-navigation position. The current operating regulation is
published in 33 CFR 117.253 (a).
    On December 4, 2017, the Coast Guard signed Bridge Permit (2-17-5)
authorizing the replacement of the existing drawbridge with a fixed
bridge with a vertical clearance of 42 feet above mean high water on an
alignment 18 feet south of the existing drawbridge. Issuance of the
bridge permit followed a multi-year process involving completion of an
environmental impact statement, Coast Guard Record of Decision, and a
navigation impact report; public meetings held on March 4, 2008, April
28, 2011, July 30, 2013, May 5, 2014, and January 22, 2015; publishing
of a preliminary public notice for navigation on November 4, 2013, and
public notice for the bridge permit application on October 20, 2017.
    This modification of the operating regulation of the existing
drawbridge is designed to mitigate vehicular congestion, maintain
public safety, and provide for safe and effective bridge construction
and removal, while also meeting the existing and future needs of
navigation. The District Department of Transportation, owner and
operator of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, requested this
change in the operating regulation. Given the small difference in
vertical clearances above mean high water between the existing
drawbridge at 40 feet and new fixed bridge at 42 feet, placing the
existing drawbridge in the closed-to-navigation position will not
restrict present navigation from transiting through the bridge. There
have been no requests for an opening of the existing drawbridge aside
from vessels engaged in bridge construction and removal since the
temporary deviation published on February 2, 2018.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 30 days and no
comments were received. No changes were made in the regulatory text
between the NPRM and this final rule.

V. Regulatory Analysis

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This is not considered a significant regulatory action. This
determination is based on the findings that: (1) The potential impact
is small, given the limited number of vessels that required a bridge
opening over the past 10 years, including zero requests since 2013; (2)
the small difference in vertical clearances above mean high water
between the existing drawbridge at 40

feet and the new fixed bridge at 42 feet; and (3) vessels will be able
to transit through the drawbridge following removal of the draw span,
after the new bridge opens to vehicular traffic.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We
received zero comments concerning this section of this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.253 (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.253  Anacostia River.

    (a) The draw of the Frederick Douglass Memorial (South Capitol
Street) bridge, mile 1.2, need not be opened for the passage of
vessels.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 15, 2018.
K.M. Smith,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-23598 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P