                                MEETING SUMMARY
             OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
    MARITIME ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (MACOSH)
                                 July 25, 2012
                       OSHA Regional Office, Seattle, WA
                         Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003

The entire transcript of this meeting can be viewed at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003

MACOSH Members Present
James Thornton  -  American Industrial Hygiene Association  -  Committee Chair
Ken Smith  -  U. S. Coast Guard
Donald Raffo  -  General Dynamics
Kelly Garber  -  API Limited
Charles Lemon  -  Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
Arthur T. Ross  -  Texas Terminals L.P.
Michael Flynn  -  International Association of Mechanics & Aerospace Workers
Robert Godinez  -  International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Philip Dovinh  -  Marine Chemist Association
Karen Conrad  -  North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association
Christopher McMahon  -  U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration
Tim Podue  -  International Longshore & Warehouse Union
Lesley Johnson  -  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

MACOSH Members Absent
George Lynch  -  International Longshoremen's Association
Eric Richardson  -  U. S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

DOL Support Staff Present
Amy Wangdahl, MACOSH Designated Federal Official
Bill Perry
Vanessa Welch
Danielle Watson
Christie Garner
Veneta Chatmon
Jennifer Levin  -  Counsel for MACOSH, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC

OSHA Guest Presenters to MACOSH
Bill Perry  -  Deputy Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Dave Mahlum  -  Deputy Regional Administrator, OSHA Region 10
Jack Reich  -  CSHO, OSHA Region 9

Members of the Public and Other OSHA Staff Present
Ed DeLach  -  OSHA Region 10
Michael Outland  -  Pacific Crane Maintenance Company, Pacific Maritime Association
Paul Weiser  -  ILWU
Tracy Bruchett  -  ILWU
Craig Blackwood  -  WA DOSH
Mickey Main  -  ILWU
Angelo Costa  -  OSHA Region 3
Jack Reich  -  OSHA Region 9
John Vos  -  OSHA Region 4
Paul Comolli  -  OSHA Office of Maritime Enforcement
Anne Soiza  -  WA DOSH
David Punte  -  WA DOSH
Jerry Swanson  -  Pacific Maritime Association
Jeff Smith  -  ILWU
Scott McElhoe  -  Northland Services
Richard Quan  -  NAVSEA, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Randy White  -  OSHA Region 10
Lt. Jamie Koppi  -  U.S. Coast Guard
Lt. Julie Blanchfield  -  U.S. Coast Guard
Mike Gunter  -  SFABright Insurance
Javier Perez  -  SSA Terminals
Melvin MacKay - ILWU
Frank C. Forman  -  IBEW
Robe Dieda  -  SSA Terminals
Jeff Mineghino  -  SSA Marine
Alan Davis  -  American Seafood
Philip McKenzie  -  Vigon Shipyard
Dean Ikeda  -  OSHA Region 10 Administrator
Steve Allen  -  Ports America
Susan Brinkerhoff  -  U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Seattle
David Doucet  -  OSHA, Houston North
Lurilla Lee  -  Trident Seafoods Corp.
Polly Parks  -  Southern Recycling
David Mahlum  -  OSHA Region 10

Opening Remarks

Mr. Thornton welcomed the Committee and the public to the meeting and explained how the Committee meeting would proceed.  Mr. Thornton introduced Amy Wangdahl as the new Designated Federal Official (DFO).

Bill Perry, Deputy Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards & Guidance

This presentation can be found on pages 15-40 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

Before starting his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Perry discussed a study published by the University of California, Berkeley, Harvard Business School, and Boston University, Department of Economics.  The study relied on workers compensation data exclusively to look at the injury experience of the establishments that either have or had not been selected for inspection in California.  It found a decline in injury rates among those firms selected for inspection, as well as a reduction in workers' compensation costs.  It also found no effect either on employment earnings, sales, or credit-worthiness.  Mr. Perry summed up the study by stating that if companies look for hazards and deal with them, they are going to protect workers, and that this action doesn't have to come at a cost of jobs or profitability.

Mr. Perry then provided an update on the activities in the Directorate of Standards and Guidance (DSG).  Mr. Perry discussed recently published OSHA standards, including SIP III, GHS, Subpart F, and Vertical Tandem Lifts.  Mr. Perry discussed the GHS revisions to the Hazard Communications Standards, including the incorporation of eight pictograms to define hazards.  He informed the Committee of the various effective dates:  June 2015 for manufacturers to implement the revised system; December 20, 2013 for employers to provide training to their workers; and June 2016 for employers to update their hazard communication programs.  Mr. Perry answered questions from the Committee on the GHS requirements.

Mr. Perry then discussed the publication of Subpart F, which covers working conditions in shipyard employment.  Mr. Perry informed the Committee that the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) filed a petition for review of the standard in federal appellate court, and that OSHA and SCA were discussing a possible settlement agreement.  Mr. Perry discussed various OSHA guidance products under development and other activities that affect the maritime industry.  He gave the Committee an update on the status of all outstanding products the Committee recommended during this charter period.

Mr. Perry answered questions from the Committee and the public.

Mr. Perry's presentation "MACOSH July 25 2012" was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 21.

Review of Minutes

Mr. Thornton asked the Committee to review the minutes from February 23, 2012, meeting in Washington, DC.  The minutes were approved without change.  The document entitled "MACOSH meeting minutes February 23, 2012, Washington, DC" was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 22.

Remarks of Dave Mahlum
Deputy Regional Administrator, OSHA Region X

This presentation can be found on pages 42-62 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

Mr. Mahlum provided an update of activities in the maritime industry in Region X.  Region X consists of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska.  Mr. Mahlum discussed the four areas of enforcement activities in the region for FY 2011 through June of FY 2012.  The four areas include shipbuilding and repair, marine cargo handling, port operations, and support activities.  The most frequently cited violations for shipbuilding and repair involved powered industrial truck (PIT), electrical, and respiratory protection standards.  For marine cargo handling, the most cited violations addressed the electrical, PIT, and vessel access standards.  In port operations, the top violations involved standards related to PIT, portable fire extinguishers (usually a lack of adequate numbers), and safety committees.  Finally, for marine support activities, the top violations addressed standards on PIT, respiratory protection, and hexavalent chromium.

Upon completion of his presentation, Mr. Mahlum answered several questions from both the Committee and the public that ranged from clarification of the statistics presented by Mr. Mahlum to specific questions, such as requests to clarify the fatalities recorded in the region.

The PowerPoint presentation by David Mahlum, "Region X Maritime Actives" was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 23.

Down in the Dry-Dock
Jack Reich, CSHO, OSHA Region IX

This presentation can be found on pages 63-87 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003

Mr. Reich, a Compliance Safety and Health Officer from Region IX, is a labor liaison and a maritime steering committee representative.  Mr. Reich presented a crane accident that occurred in Region IX several years ago, and that resulted in an OSHA investigation.  Mr. Reich provided details to the accident and was able to show the Committee several pictures from his investigation.  The case involved the destruction of a 386-ton American revolver crane.

The incident occurred during barge centering.  During the centering operation, the first crane used (crane 1) broke down and the company switched to a second crane (crane 2).  Crane 1 was able to resume operation, therefore crane 2 was put on hold.  The operator of crane 2 remained inside the crane with the power on.  Crane 2 had not been pelican hooked and began to move unexpectedly.  It was unable to be stopped by the emergency stop.  The rail clamps had been altered by the company and were no longer automatic, but instead operated by a manual wheel, which failed.  Crane 2 traveled approximately 850 feet, and attained an estimated speed of 20-25 miles per hour before crashing at the end of the dock.  As the crane began to drop, the operator was able exit the cab of the crane and jump into the water, sustaining minor physical injuries.  Upon investigating the incident, several violations were cited that contributed to the accident:  the failure to engage the pelican hook, alterations to the rail clamp, lack of training, and lack of maintenance, among other violations.  The company received citations and fines for the accident.  After a follow-up inspection several years later, it was determined that proper maintenance had been completed on the cranes following the accident.

Mr. Reich answered several questions from the Committee and the public.

The PowerPoint presentation by Jack Reich, "Down in the Dry-Docks" was entered into the record at Docket number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 24.

International Maritime Organization (IMO) Items of Interest
Ken Smith, Longshore Workgroup Chair

This presentation can be viewed on pages 88-109 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

As a member of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers subcommittee, Mr. Smith presented to MACOSH on several topics that are similar to the work performed by MACOSH.  Topics discussed by Mr. Smith included:  amendments to the SOLAS, container weights, ACEP developments, reefer explosions, and crane and lifting appliances.

Amendments to the SOLAS:  an issue that has been raised concerning the problems associated with rescuing personnel from confined spaces.  The proposed revision from IMO would require testing and training drills associated with enclosed spaces.

Container weights:  a big issue in the maritime industry for several years.  This discussion focused around a 2009 report from IMO that focused on concerns involving the accuracy of weights associated with containers.  The study confirmed that container weights have a significant impact on the stability of a ship, though there are no requirements that mandate that the maritime community ensure that the weights be verified.  IMO has been working closely with customs and border patrol personnel on this issue.  The IMO will be proposing to amend the SOLAS to require that containers be weighed.

Approved Continuous Examination Programs (ACEP) Developments:  ACEP requires that containers have a maintenance program if the containers are kept in continuous service without being removed for inspection.  The Coast Guard has put forward an initiative to provide some type of a standardization of these programs.

Reefer explosions:  a topic of discussion by the IMO since early 2011.  These explosions became an issue for the Coast Guard after the April 2011 explosion in Vietnam during routine servicing of the compressor units; the explosion resulted in two confirmed casualties.  After additional container explosions later that year, a worldwide alert were issued by multiple international trade associations and MAERSK Line.  The investigation revealed that the refrigerant used in the compressor units was counterfeit.  The refrigerant was found to contain ingredients that could cause the explosion.

Crane and lifting appliance issues:  this issue was highlighted by a couple of incidents in Japan and New Zealand that encouraged the IMO to develop guidance on cranes and lifting appliances.  OHSA adopted the ILO Convention 152 for shipboard appliances and cranes.

Upon completion of his presentation, Mr. Smith answered several questions from the Committee members and the public.

The PowerPoint by Ken Smith, "IMO Items of Interest" was entered into the record in Docket number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 25.

Longshoring Workgroup (LSWG) Report
Ken Smith, Workgroup Chair

This presentation can be found on pages 109-163 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

Since the last MACOSH meeting, the LSWG held four conference calls and produced four documents, including two guidance documents, one fact sheet, and one quick card (see below).  The LSWG reviewed three documents for the Shipyard workgroup.  During this charter period, the LSWG produced twelve new documents, including three fact sheets, three guidance products, and six quick cards.

During the workgroup meeting on July 24, 2012, the LSWG addressed several topics.  These topics included:  the prevention of tractor lifting and jostling incidents; log handling operations; recovery of person in the water; and hot work on hollow or enclosed structures in marine terminals.  The workgroup also began reviewing a new document, authored by Kelly Garber, concerning the prevention of tractor lifting and jostling incidents.  This problem occurs when semi tractors pull underneath the container-gantry cranes to pick up the containers and the container becomes stuck on the chassis' bed and lifts the tractor, jostling the driver.

The workgroup asked the Committee to approve, and recommend to OSHA, four documents:  quick card for "Person in the Water  -  Prevention, Recovery and Survival"; "Guidance Document for the Recovery of Persons in the Water"; fact sheet on "Hot Work on Hollow or Enclosed Structures in Marine Terminals"; and the guidance document for log handling operations.

The quick card for "Person in the Water" was a carryover from the previous meeting in February.  The LSWG incorporated all of the changes suggested by the SYWG.  There was a motion to accept the quick card, and the motion was approved unanimously by the Committee as presented without discussion.  The quick card was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 26

The guidance document for "Recovery of Persons in Water" was also a carryover from the previous meeting in February.  The LSWG incorporated all of the changes suggested by the SYWG.  There was a motion to accept the guidance document that was approved unanimously by the Committee as presented without discussion.  Upon acceptance of the document, Mr. Thornton commented on the excellent quality of the work performed on these documents by MACOSH.  The guidance document was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA -2012-0003 as Exhibit 27.

The fact sheet on "Hot Work on Hollow or Enclosed Structures in Marine Terminals" was the next item of discussion.  The SYWG provided comments to the LSWG, most of which were accepted.  The workgroup also made a few minor changes presented to the Committee.  There was a motion to accept the fact sheet as amended.  The fact sheet as amended was accepted unanimously by the Committee.  The fact sheet was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 28.

The guidance document for log handling operations was the primary focus of the workgroup's session.  The SYWG provided suggested changes, which were discussed by the workgroup; a final document was prepared to present to the full committee.  Most of the SYWG comments were incorporated, with some exceptions on technical issues the longshoremen believed were necessary to keep in the document.  The issue of "unguarded edges" was a major topic of discussion from the LSWG and the SYWG, as well as the public.  The guidance product, as written, referred to the required use of fall protection when working within three feet from an unguarded edge.  This is an OHSA requirement that some employers and workers believe increases dangers for workers.  Both the Committee and the public agreed that this is a major issue, but were uncertain how it should be addressed.  The LSWG put into the guidance product that fall protection is required, although they believed that its use is not always protective because it may create a greater hazard to employees.  To address these concerns, a bullet was added to the document indicating the potential for creation of a greater hazard.  The Committee recommended that OSHA:  determine if it has issued variances or letters of interpretation concerning the requirements for fall prevention equipment associated with logging operations; consider amending 29 CFR 1918.88 such that it provides allowance for exemptions similar to that provided in 29 CFR 1918.85(j)(3); and conduct additional research, evaluate existing technologies, and take actions as appropriate.  The Committee unanimously approved the revisions to the document.  The guidance document for "Log Handling Operations, final draft, July 24-25, 2012" was entered into the record at Docket number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 29.

In addition, during the workgroup meeting the LSWG discussed and identified what internal committee practices work well for the workgroup and MACOSH overall, and considered what could be improved; it also discussed recommendations for the LSWG for the next charter period.  The LSWG mentioned several items:  improving information sharing between the workgroups; improving the pace of work to meet deadlines; and members taking ownership of their ideas, thereby laying a foundation for success; the LSWG also praised OSHA's new document-tracking system.  The group also discussed items that they would like OSHA to improve or change:  the timeliness of the publication of their work (though the workgroup recognized that OSHA is addressing this issue); OSHA's process for removing and replacing committee members; and informing MACOSH on a regular basis of fatalities that occur in maritime employment.

The Committee unanimously voted in favor of accepting the Longshoring Workgroup report.

The PowerPoint presentation entitled "Longshoring Workgroup Report" was entered into record at Docket Number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 30.

Shipyard Workgroup (SYWG) Report
Don Raffo, Workgroup Chair

This presentation can be found at pages 163-181 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

The SYWG held several conference calls since the last MACOSH meeting, during which they reviewed the four guidance documents submitted to the full committee by the LSWG.  In addition, The SYWG completed revisions on the ventilation guidance document and the injury and illness prevention programs documents (including the white paper and the outline of program elements).

The SYWG ventilation guidance was reviewed by the LSWG, and there were only minor grammatical changes suggested.  The SYWG incorporated all changes.  There was a discussion among the workgroups to revise the title of the document to include "maritime industry" but, upon reviewing the document further, they were unable to make that change because only shipyard standards were referenced in the document.  There was a motion to accept the guidance document and the Committee approved the motion unanimously without discussion.  The guidance product "Ventilation in Shipyard Employment, Workgroup Version 6" was entered into the record at Docket number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 31.

The SYWG discussed two documents dealing with injury and illness prevention programs (I2P2)  -  an outline of the eight elements of an I2P2 program and a white paper on I2P2.  The outline focuses on the eight elements from the Brown Book that provides examples under each element of how small employers could meet the substance of the element without a safety and health staff.  There was a motion to accept the outline, and the Committee approved the motion unanimously without discussion.  The outline "Injury and Illness Prevention Programs, outline, SWYG8, July 24, 2012" was entered into the record at Docket number OSHA -2012-0003 as Exhibit 32.

The draft white paper discussed concerns in implementing the program in small to medium shipyards, and why the outline was developed.  There was a motion to accept the white paper, and the Committee approved the motion unanimously without discussion.  The document entitled "MACOSH White Paper on the Proposed Injury and Illness Prevention Regulations, SYWG8, July 24, 2012" was entered into the record at Docket number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 33.

The SYWG also presented a spreadsheet of products they worked on during this charter period, including the eight documents that have been completed.  With approximately six months left in the charter period, the SYWG has chosen two documents to focus on:  guidelines for entering and cleaning sewage tanks safely, and a translation of a previous radiant-energy document into Spanish.  The SYWG also had several recommendations to the next MACOSH committee, including:  guidelines for safe work practices during the repair of shipboard refrigeration systems; guidelines for respirator use and applications; addressing ergonomic issues; and preventing injuries from slips, trips, and falls.  There was a motion to accept the SYWG report, and the Committee approved the motion unanimously without discussion.

The PowerPoint presentation entitled "Shipyard Workgroup Report" was entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA 2012-0003 as Exhibit 34.

MACOSH Project Identification
Don Raffo, SYWG Chair

This discussion can be found on pages 181-192 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

Mr. Raffo discussed the various ways the Committee decides on the topics or products to pursue.  At the start of each charter period there is always a discussion on products or issues that each workgroup would like to accomplish.  In the past, workgroups have relied on BLS data to identify specific maritime topics to address according to BLS injury and illness data.  Mr. Raffo looked at other data sources:  enforcement data, workers' compensation data, and fatality data.  In the end, he concluded there was no one way to identify topics.

The PowerPoint presentation entitled "New Ideas for MACOSH Project Identification" was entered into the record as Docket number OSHA-2012-0003 as Exhibit 35.

Open Discussion  -  Full Committee

This discussion can be found on pages 192-212 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

Mr. Thornton called on all Committee members to make closing comments.  Several members thanked their fellow Committee members and OSHA staff for their hard work and ideas.  Others remarked that, while the workgroup structure works well, the workgroups should increase their communication with each other to facilitate document review and editing.  Members also stated that face-to-face meetings are important to the Committee's success.  Several members also expressed hope that OSHA will work quickly to recharter the Committee.

Public Comments

There were no closing comments from the public.

Closing Remarks by MACOSH Chair Thornton and Adjournment

This discussion can be found on pages 207-211 of the meeting transcript at www.regulations.gov under docket number OSHA-2012-0003.

Mr. Thornton expressed his appreciation to the Committee members, who have devoted significant time to attend the Committee meetings and workgroup teleconferences.  He also stated that the work of the Committee is making a difference in preventing injuries, and that the Committee's work is important for worker protection.

Mr. Thornton told the Committee that he was humbled and honored to lead the Committee.  Mr. Thornton thanked the OSHA staff for organizing the meetings, and the public for participating in the workgroup and committee meetings.  The meeting of the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are an accurate summary of the meeting.

Submitted by:

______________________________
James Thornton
MACOSH Chair
Date:  October XX, 2012


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 62615]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-42-000]

RE Rosamond Two LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RE Rosamond Two LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 5, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24560 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57447-57448]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1262]

Notice of Approval of Product Under Voucher: Rare Pediatric
Disease Priority Review Voucher

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of approval of a product redeeming a priority review voucher.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA),
authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of
approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain
criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the issuance of vouchers
as well as the approval of products redeeming a

voucher. FDA has determined that an efficacy supplement for DESCOVY
(emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) approved October 3, 2019,
meets the redemption criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Althea Cuff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 301-
796-9858, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will report the issuance of rare
pediatric disease priority review vouchers and the approval of products
for which a voucher was redeemed. FDA has determined that an efficacy
supplement for DESCOVY (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide)
approved October 3, 2019, meets the redemption criteria.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further
information about DESCOVY (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide)
efficacy supplement approved October 3, 2019, go to the ``[email protected]''
website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: October 21, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-23252 Filed 10-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13967-13968]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

[Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 BTS Paperwork Reduction Notice]

Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report
of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates--Form 183

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
(OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general
public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the
continuing need and usefulness of BTS collecting reports from air
carriers on the aggregated indebtedness balance of a political
candidate or party for Federal office. The reports are required when
the aggregated indebtedness is over $5,000 on the last day of a month.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
DOT-OST-2014-0031 and the associated OMB approval # 2138-0016 by any of
the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Services: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Identify docket number, DOT-OST-2014-0031, at the
beginning of your comments, and send two copies. To receive
confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed
stamped postcard. Internet users may access all comments received by
DOT at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments are posted
electronically without charge or edits, including any personal
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline
Information, RTS-42, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Street SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Approval No. 2138-0016.
    Title: Report of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates--Form
183, 14 CFR part 374a.
    Form No.: 183.
    Type Of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Certificated air carriers.
    Number of Respondents: 2 (Monthly Average).
    Number of Responses: 24.
    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.
    Total Annual Burden: 24 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The Department uses this form as the means to
fulfill its obligation under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(the Act). The Act's legislative history indicates that one of its
statutory goals is to prevent candidates for Federal political office
from incurring large amounts of unsecured debt with regulated
transportation companies (e.g., airlines). This information collection
allows the Department to monitor and disclose the amount of unsecured
credit extended by airlines to candidates for Federal office. All
certificated air carriers are required to submit this information.
    The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to
clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes.
BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the
information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical
purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both
Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to
agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in
regulatory and other administrative matters.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2021.
William Chadwick, Jr.,
Director, Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2021-05016 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69305-69306]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 18f-3, SEC File No. 270-385, OMB Control No. 3235-0441.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget request for extension of the previously approved collection
of information discussed below.

    Section 18(f)(1) \1\ of the Investment Company Act of 1940 \2\ (the
``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'') prohibits registered open-end
management investment companies (``funds'') from issuing any senior
security. Rule 18f-3 under the Act \3\ exempts from section 18(f)(1) a
fund that issues multiple classes of shares representing interests in
the same portfolio of securities (a ``multiple class fund'') if the
fund satisfies the conditions of the rule. In general, each class must
differ in its arrangement for shareholder services or distribution or
both, and must pay the related expenses of that different arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-18(f)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 270.18f-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule includes one requirement for the collection of
information. A multiple class fund must prepare, and fund directors
must approve, a written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and
expense allocation of each class, and any related conversion features
or exchange privileges (``rule 18f-3 plan'').\4\ Approval of the plan
must occur before the fund issues any shares of multiple classes and
whenever the fund materially amends the plan. In approving the plan, a
majority of the fund board, including a majority of the fund's
independent directors, must determine that the plan is in the best
interests of each class and the fund as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 18f-3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that the fund prepare and directors approve a
written rule 18f-3 plan is intended to ensure that the fund compiles
information relevant to the fairness of the separate arrangement and
expense allocation for each class, and that directors review and
approve the information. Without a blueprint that highlights material
differences among classes, directors might not perceive potential
conflicts of interests when they determine whether the plan is in the
best interests of each class and the fund. In addition, the plan may be
useful to Commission staff in reviewing the fund's compliance with the
rule.
    There are approximately 5,655 multiple class funds offered by 1,020
registrants.\5\ Based on a review of typical rule 18f-3 plans, the
Commission's staff estimates that the 1,020 registrants together make
an average of 510 responses each year to prepare and approve a written
rule 18f-3 plan, requiring approximately 8 hours per response and a
total of 4,080 burden hours per year in the aggregate.\6\ The staff
estimates that preparation of the rule 18f-3 plan may require 5 hours
of the services of an attorney employed by the fund, at a cost of
approximately $354.00 per hour for professional time,\7\ and approval
of the plan may require 3 hours of the services of the board of
directors, at a cost of approximately $4,000.00 per hour.\8\ The staff
therefore estimates that the aggregate annual cost of complying with
the paperwork requirements of the rule is approximately $7,022,700.00
((5 hours x 510 responses x $354.00.00 = $902,700.00) + (3 hours x 510
responses x $4,000.00 = $6,120,000.00)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on data from Form N-SAR, the semi-
annual report that funds file with the Commission. In previous
years, the staff estimated that each multiple class fund prepared
and approved a rule 18f-3 plan. However, the staff has revised this
estimate to reflect its belief that most registrants prepare and
approve a single rule 18f-3 plan for all series funds offered by the
registrants.
    \6\ The estimate reflects the assumption that each registrant
prepares and approves a rule 18f-3 plan every two years when issuing
a new fund or new class or amending a plan (or that 510 of all 1020
registrants prepare and approve a plan each year). The estimate
assumes that the time required to prepare a plan is 5 hours per plan
(or 2550 hours for 510 registrants annually), and the time required
to approve a plan is an additional 3 hours per plan (or 1530 hours
for 510 registrants annually).
    \7\ This hourly rate estimate is derived from annual salaries
reported in: Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
Management and Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry
(2010), modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour
work year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead.
    \8\ This hourly rate estimate is derived from fund
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual burden of 4,080 hours represents a decrease of
1,520 hours from the prior estimate of 5,600 hours. The decrease in
burden hours is attributable to changes in the estimates of the average
hour burden per response and the number of responses that are submitted
pursuant to the rule.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of
information requirement is mandatory. Responses will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    November 3, 2011.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28909 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7656-7657]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver for Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance at
Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma City, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to
nonaeronautical use and to authorize the conversion of the airport
property. The proposal consists of three parcels of land containing a
total of approximately 127 acres located on the east side of the
airport between South Portland Avenue and Interstate Highway 44.
    These parcels were originally acquired under the following grants:
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Nos. 3-40-0072-03 and 3-40-0072-07 in
1990; AIP No. 3-40-0072-23 in 1992; and AIP No. 3-40-0072-24 in 1993.
The land comprising these parcels is outside the forecasted need for
aviation development and, thus, is no longer needed for indirect or
direct aeronautical use. The Airport wishes to develop this land for
compatible commercial, nonaeronautical use. The income from the
conversion of these parcels will benefit the aviation community by
reinvestment in the airport.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the conversion of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The
disposition of proceeds from the conversion of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999. In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United
States Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires
the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Edward N. Agnew,
Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development
Office Manager, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Kranenburg, Director of
Airports, The City of Oklahoma City, 7100 Terminal Drive, Oklahoma
City, OK 73159, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mr. Edward N. Agnew,
Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development
Office Manager, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76137, telephone
(817) 222-5630, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at the above locations.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 1, 2012.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-3146 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 20632]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07982]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9008-5]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 03/25/2013
Through 03/29/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130080, Final EIS, BLM, CA, Clear Creek Management Area
Proposed Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/06/2013,
Contact: Sky Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130081, Draft EIS, USFWS, IN, Fowler Ridge Wind Habitat
Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit, Comment Period Ends: 06/
04/2013, Contact: Scott Pruitt<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130082, Draft Supplement, FERC, ME, Downeast Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/20/2013, Contact:
Shannon Crosley<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130083, Draft EIS, NPS, NC, Fort Raleigh National Historic
Site Draft General Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/04/2013,
Contact: David Libman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130084, Final EIS, USFS, CO, Black Mesa Vegetation Management
Project, Rio Grande National Forest, Review Period Ends: 05/17/2013,
Contact: Diana McGinn<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130085, Final EIS, USACE, OK, Eufaula Lake Shoreline
Management Plan Revision and Master Plan Supplement, Review Period
Ends: 05/06/2013, Contact: Jeff Knack<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 2, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-07982 Filed 4-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21233-21235]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09887]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337; FRL-9977-88--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans;Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the Commonwealth or Virginia). This revision
pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of
pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA
is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0337 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 16, 2015, Virginia, through the
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision
to address the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) with the exception of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approved that SIP revision on June 16,
2016. See 81 FR 39210. EPA's previous approval on that June 16, 2015
submittal is not at issue in this rulemaking action and EPA will not be
taking comment on the previous approval. On May 16, 2017, Virginia,
through VADEQ, submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

I. Background

A. General

    Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small
particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles
can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle
pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems.
Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in
the nation's cities and national parks. PM2.5 can be emitted
directly into the atmosphere, or it can form from chemical reactions of
precursor gases including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), certain volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
ammonia. On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the level of the health based
(primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per meter
cubed ([micro]g/m\3\). See 78 FR 3086.

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS--such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what
is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical
tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP
revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the
submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
    Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
address any emissions activity in one state that contributes
significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these
requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the ``good
neighbor'' provision of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA issued a
memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs
that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS (2016 PM2.5 Memorandum).\1\ Further information can be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking
action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor''
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the
docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA Analysis

    Virginia's May 16, 2017 SIP submittal includes a summary of annual
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and SO2,
both of which are precursors of PM2.5. The emissions summary
shows that emissions from Virginia sources have been steadily
decreasing for sources that could potentially contribute with respect
to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to nonattainment in, or interfere
with maintenance of, any other state. The submittal also included
currently

available air quality monitoring data for PM2.5, and its
precursors SO2 and NO2, which Virginia alleged
show that PM2.5 levels continue to be below the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in Virginia.
    Virginia also discussed EPA's 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and
the fact that EPA's analysis showed that only one monitor in the
eastern United States had projected PM2.5 data above the
12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ NAAQS value (Allegheny County, PA). Virginia also
discussed the direction of prevailing winds throughout Virginia and
how, apart from short-term weather variations, Virginia's emissions
would have a negligible influence on Allegheny County's attainment
status. Virginia also points to EPA's response to comments on the 2012
PM2.5 Designations, in which EPA discusses the factors
contributing to the Allegheny County area's nonattainment
designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Response to Significant Comments on the State and Tribal
Designation Recommendations for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)'' December 17, 2014.
See Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0337, page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Virginia described in its submittal several existing
SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific
measures, pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA, that apply
to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within Virginia.
Virginia alleges with these measures, emissions reductions, ambient
monitored PM2.5 data, and meteorological data, the
Commonwealth does not significantly contribute to, nor interfere with
the maintenance of, another state for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
A detailed summary of Virginia's submittal and EPA's review and
rationale for approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may be found in
the TSD for this rulemaking action, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337.
    EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum
and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same
conclusion as Virginia. As discussed in greater detail in the TSD, EPA
identified the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, and then
evaluated them to determine if Virginia's emissions could potentially
contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2021, the
attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Specifically, the analysis identified the following areas as potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors: (i) 17 potential receptors in
California; (ii) one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho;
(iii) one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (iv)
data gaps exist for the monitors in four counties in Florida; and (v)
data gaps exist for all monitors in Illinois. For the 17 receptors in
California and one potential receptor in Idaho, based on EPA's
evaluation of distance and wind direction, EPA proposes to conclude
that Virginia's emissions do not significantly impact those receptors.
For the potential receptor in Allegheny County, EPA expects the air
quality affecting that monitor to improve to the point where the
monitor will not be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor by 2021 and
is therefore unlikely to be a receptor for purposes of interstate
transport. For the four counties in Florida and the monitors in
Illinois with data gaps, EPA initially treats those receptors as
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors. For the Florida
receptors, it is unlikely that they will be nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2021 and in any event, modeling from the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates that Virginia's
emissions do not contribute to them. For the monitors in Illinois, the
most recent air quality data (from 2015 and 2016) indicates that all
monitors are likely attaining the PM2.5 NAAQs and are
therefore unlikely to be nonattainment or maintenance concerns in 2021.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia emissions will not
contribute to those monitors. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to
find that Virginia's existing SIP provisions as identified in the May
16, 2017 SIP submittal are adequate to prevent its emission sources
from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance in another state with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the May 16, 2017 Virginia SIP revision
addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS because the submittal adequately addresses
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent, and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998

opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. 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 approves 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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).
    This action, proposing approval of Virginia's interstate transport
submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 standard, is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
 Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-09887 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36680-36683]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0347; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-173-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplane
equipped with Pratt & Whitney Model JT9D or PW4000 engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of several cases of low hydraulic
pressure or loss of electrical power to the alternating current motor
pump (ACMP) on the left engine. This proposed AD would require
inspecting for damage of the wiring bundles in the left engine's strut
and corrective actions if necessary, and installing new wire support
brackets and bundle clamp. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct chafed wire bundles due to rubbing against structure or a
hydraulic piping elbow, which could result in electrical arcing in a
flammable fluid leakage zone, and would provide a possible ignition
source for fuel vapors and hydraulic fluids. Ignited fuel vapors or
hydraulic fluid in an area without a fire detection or suppression
system could result in an uncontained engine strut fire and structural
damage to the engine strut.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0347; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0347;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-173-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of several cases of low hydraulic
pressure or loss of electrical power to the ACMP on the left engine.
These cases were found to be caused by a damaged power feeder wire
bundle in the outboard aft fairing area of the left engine strut. In
most of the cases, the wire bundle had chafed against the fuse pin
washer at the midspar fitting and signs of arcing were found. In one
case, the wire bundle was found to have chafed against a hydraulic
piping elbow near the fuse pin washer, which resulted in a severed wire
bundle and a hole in the hydraulic piping elbow. That hole in the
hydraulic piping elbow, if not found, could result in a hydraulic fluid
leak. Wire bundles that are chafed due to rubbing against structure or
the hydraulic piping elbow, if not detected and corrected, could result
in electrical arcing in a flammable fluid leakage zone, and would
provide a possible ignition source for fuel vapors and hydraulic
fluids. Ignited fuel vapors or hydraulic fluid in an area without a
fire detection or suppression system could result in an uncontained
engine strut fire and structural damage to the engine strut.

Related Rulemaking

    AD 2004-16-12, Amendment 39-13768 (69 FR 51002, August 17, 2004),
also applies to certain Model 767 airplanes that are powered by Pratt &
Whitney engines. AD 2004-16-12 required actions to prevent fatigue
cracking in primary strut structure, which could result in separation
of the strut and engine from the airplane. One of those actions is the
prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-
0057, dated December 16, 1993; or Revision 1, dated August 14, 2003.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May
22, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see
this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
Docket No. FAA-2014-0347.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013,
specifies concurrent or prior accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin
767-29-0057, Revision 3, dated June 9, 2011, for modification of
certain wire bundles.

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 inspecting for damage of the wiring
bundles in the left engine's strut, and corrective actions if
necessary; and installing new wiring support brackets and bundle clamp.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.
    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013, described previously
include steps that are labeled as RC (required for compliance) because
these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving,
or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
    As noted in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May
22, 2013, steps labeled as RC must be done to comply with the proposed
AD. However, steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended. Those
steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as part of
other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22,
2013, without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC), provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the airplane
can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or
changes to steps labeled as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 126 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and installation.........  13 work-hours x $85 per            $349           $1,454         $183,204
                                       hour = $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0347; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-173-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 14, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Pratt
& Whitney Model JT9D or PW4000 engines, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of several cases of low
hydraulic pressure or loss of electrical power to the alternating
current motor pump (ACMP) on the left engine. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct chafed wire bundles due to rubbing against
structure or a hydraulic piping elbow, which could result in
electrical arcing in a flammable fluid leakage zone, and would
provide a possible ignition source for fuel vapors and hydraulic
fluids. Ignited fuel vapors or hydraulic fluid in an area without a
fire detection or suppression system could result in an uncontained
engine strut fire and structural damage to the engine strut.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection for damage of the wiring bundles in the left
engine's strut, and all applicable corrective actions; and install
new wire support brackets and bundle clamps; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
29A0115, dated May 22, 2013. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight.

(h) Prior or Concurrent Action

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 airplanes in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013: Prior to or
concurrently with doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, do a modification of the wire bundles, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-
0057, Revision 3, dated June 9, 2011.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:  For certain airplanes,
paragraph (b) of AD 2004-16-12, Amendment 39-13768 (69 FR 51002,
August 17, 2004), references Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057,
dated December 16, 2003; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057,
Revision 1, dated August 14, 2003; as concurrent requirements.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using any of the service information
identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD,
which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057, dated December 16,
1993.
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057, Revision 1, dated
August 14, 2003.
    (3) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057, Revision 2, dated
September 24, 2009.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) If the service information contains steps that are labeled
as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply
with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended.
Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as
part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from
those identified in the specified service information without
obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps labeled as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition.
Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC require approval
of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Georgios
Roussos, Aerospace

Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15247 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 89929]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-482-000]

BREG Aggregator LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
BREG Aggregator LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 27, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 6, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29789 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 51165]
[DOCID:fr05oc09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1858-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1858-DR), dated September 24, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 25, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 24, 2009.

    Walker County for Individual Assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-23959 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P