  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0011; FRL-_________]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State on April 28,
2009.  The purpose of these revisions is to update existing air quality
rules; make corrections, clarifications and improvements; and to add
information with regard to the application of permit exemptions.  EPA is
approving the SIP revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.

DATES:  This direct final rule will be effective [insert date 60 days
from date of publication in the Federal Register], without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by [insert date 30 days from
date of publication in the Federal Register].  If EPA receives adverse
comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0011, by one of the following methods:

1.	  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

2.	E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
3.	Mail or Hand Delivery:  Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

	Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0011.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit through   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or e-mail information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.  The   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website 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   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
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 docket are listed in the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically in   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.  The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.  The interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at
least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Tracey Casburn at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

	Throughout this document “we,” ”us,” or “our” refer to the
EPA.

Table of Contents

What is being addressed in this document?

What revisions is EPA approving?

What action is EPA taking?

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I.	What is being addressed in this document?

The State has revised Chapter 22 of the State air pollution control
rules promulgated by the State’s Environmental Protection Commission.
EPA is approving the revisions described below for the reasons discussed
in this document.

II.	What revisions is EPA approving?

The State made revisions to Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” to
clarify the terms and conditions of permit exemptions for certain
internal combustion engines and spray booths.  Those revisions are
described in this document.

The State added a requirement to Iowa Rule 567-22.1(2)“r” that the
owner or operator of an internal combustion engine with a brake
horsepower of less than 400, measured at the shaft, must submit a
certification to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources that the
engine is in compliance with Federal New Source Performance Standards
listed at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ and Federal
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
listed at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ.

The State amended Iowa Rule 567-22.8(1) to add clarification that the
facilities, which spray one gallon per day or less of sprayed material
on a facility-wide basis, are exempt from all other requirements of Iowa
Rule 567-22 with the exception that the owner or operator must adhere to
record keeping requirements specified in the rule for the sprayed
material.  The revision also requires that the owner or operator must
certify that the facility is in compliance with or otherwise exempt from
the Federal regulations specified in Iowa Rule 567-22.8(1)“e” (the
NESHAPS for paint stripping and surface coating at area sources, and the
NESHAPS for metal fabricating and finishing at area sources).

The State added amendments to the same rule clarifying that facilities,
which spray more than one gallon per day but never more than three
gallons per day on a facility-wide basis, are exempt from all other
requirements of Iowa State Rule 567-22 except the owner or operator must
adhere to certification, record keeping and emissions venting
requirements as identified in the rule.  The State added a requirement
that the owner or operator must certify that the facility is in
compliance with or otherwise exempt from the Federal regulations
specified in Iowa Rule 567-22.8(1)“e” (described above).

The State added language clarifying that facilities, which spray more
than three gallons per day on a facility-wide basis, are not eligible to
use the permit by rule for spray booths and must apply for a
construction permit as required by subrules 567-22.1(1) and 567-22.1(3)
unless otherwise exempt.

The State added language explaining its requirements for the
“Notification Letter.”  Facilities which claim to be permitted by
provisions of the rule must submit a notification letter, on forms
provided by the State, certifying that the facility meets the following
requirements:

(1)	All paint booths and associated equipment are in compliance with the
provisions of Iowa Rule 567-22.8(1);

(2)	All paint booths and associated equipment are in compliance with all
applicable requirements, including but not limited to, the allowable
particulate emission rate for painting and surface coating operations of
0.01 gr/scf of exhaust gas as specified in Iowa Rule 567-23.4(13); and

(3)	All paint booths and associated equipment are in compliance with or
otherwise exempt from the Federal NESHAPS at 40 CFR Part 63, subpart
HHHHHH.

This revision also amends the numbering system of Iowa Rule
567-22.8(1)“e” to allow for the addition of the requirements of the
notification letter.

III.	What action is EPA taking?

	EPA is taking final action to approve the revisions to the Iowa SIP.
The revisions submitted pertain to corrections, clarifications and
improvements as listed previously in this document.  These modifications
either clarify existing requirements or add additional requirements for
sources to qualify for permit exemptions.  Therefore, EPA has determined
that the revisions will not adversely affect the air quality in the
State of Iowa and will not relax the SIP.

The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102.  The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.  The
revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

	EPA is processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial.
 Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.  Please note that
if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part
can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final
those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

		Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Public Law 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
Clean Air Act; 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 rule 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.

	The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

	Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert
date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the Federal
Register].  Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action.  Parties with objections to this
direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the
parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the
proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking.  This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b) (2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: _February 23, 2010.___   /s/ Karl Brooks _______________

						  Karl Brooks,

						  Regional Administrator,

						  Region 7.

	40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

	Part 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

	Subpart Q - Iowa

	2.	In § 52.820(c) the table is amended by revising the entries for
567-22.1 and 567-22.8 to read as follows:

§52.820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

	(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations

Iowa citation	Title	State effective date	EPA approval date	Explanation

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission
[567]

* * * * * * *

Chapter 22 – Controlling Pollution

567-22.1	Permits required for New or Existing Stationary Sources	3/18/09
[insert date of FR publication] [insert FR page number where the
document begins]

	* * * * * * *

567-22.8	Permits By Rule	3/18/09	[insert date of FR publication] [insert
FR page number where the document begins]

	* * * * * * *

* * * * *

  PAGE  10

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  11


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69845-69846]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP14-17-000; PF13-7-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on November 1, 2013, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue SE., Charleston, West Virginia
25314, filed an application under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act for the East Side Expansion Project (Project) in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. Columbia proposes to (i) replace
existing compressors with new compressors at Milford and Easton
Compressor Stations (CS), located in Pennsylvania, (ii) install
approximately 9.5 miles of new 26-inch pipeline loop at the existing
Line 1278 between Eagle CS and Downingtown CS in Chester County,
Pennsylvania, (iii) install approximately 9.5 miles of 20-inch pipeline
loop at the existing Line 10345 in Gloucester County, New Jersey, and
(iv) install various measurement, station piping, and appurtenant
facilities at existing sites located in Orange County, New York, Bucks
and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania, and Harford County, Maryland,
all as more fully set forth in the application. This filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the East Side Expansion Project should be
directed to Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 or at (304)
357-2359 (phone), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).
    On March 8, 2013, the Commission staff granted Columbia's request
to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing
Process and assigned Docket No. PF13-7-000 to staff activities
involving the project. Now, as of the filing of this application on
November 1, 2013 (CP14-17-000), the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP14-17-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit

7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to
the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties
to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 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 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>.
    Comment Date: December 6, 2013.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27952 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5370-5373]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1934]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-1086; FRL-9260-1]

Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion Component to the Hazard
Ranking System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public Input.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is soliciting
stakeholder input on whether to include a vapor intrusion component to
the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''). The HRS is the principal mechanism
EPA uses to place sites on the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List
(NPL). This potential addition would allow the HRS to directly consider
the human exposure to contaminants that enter building structures
through the subsurface environment and thus, enabling sites with vapor
intrusion contamination to be evaluated for placement on the NPL. EPA
is accepting public feedback on specific topics related to the
potential HRS revision (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
Notice), and will consider information gathered during this comment
period, as well as input from three public listening sessions before
making a decision on whether to issue a proposed rulemaking to add a
vapor intrusion component to the HRS. The Agency is requesting comments
only regarding this potential addition to the HRS. The Agency is not
considering changes to the remainder of the HRS.

DATES: Comments on the topics identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice must be submitted (postmarked) on or
before April 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments on the topics identified in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-1086, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room; EPA
West Building, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
     Listening Session: Oral and written comments on the topics
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice will be
accepted at each of the three listening sessions. Follow the
instructions provided on the listening session Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm for preparing written
comments to be submitted at one of the listening sessions.
    Instructions: Direct comments on the topics identified in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2010-1086. 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Note that 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 along with any disk
or CD-ROM submitted. 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. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center--
Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 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 Superfund docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is considering adding a vapor intrusion
component as a new mechanism to the HRS that would enable vapor
intrusion contamination to be included in an HRS evaluation. Presented
below is background information on the HRS, its statutory basis, and
further detail regarding this potential addition and related topics on
which EPA is requesting public comment.
    The Agency will conduct public outreach activities, including
facilitating public listening sessions, providing public information
documents, and establishing a Web site with more information regarding
this potential addition to the HRS. The Agency will consider the
information gathered from this Notice, listening sessions, and other
sources before making a decision on whether to issue a proposed
rulemaking to add subsurface contaminant intrusion to the HRS. The
Agency is therefore requesting comments only regarding this potential
addition to the HRS, and is not considering changes to the remainder of
the HRS.
    EPA is currently scheduled to hold three listening sessions
following publication of this Notice to allow interested parties to
present feedback on the potential HRS addition. EPA welcomes the input
that will be provided to the Agency by listening session participants.
This input will be considered by the Agency as it determines the need
for and nature of the addition to the HRS.
    For those stakeholders who cannot attend one of the listening
sessions, comments on the topics described below in the Potential
Addition of Vapor Intrusion Component to the HRS subsection of this
Notice should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this Notice. Written comments will also
be accepted at the listening sessions. Follow the instructions provided
on the listening session Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm for preparing written comments to be
submitted at one of the listening sessions; see also the ADDRESSES
section of this Notice.
    In a separate effort, EPA is also preparing a final guidance
document on vapor intrusion that will replace the 2002 Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Draft Guidance for Evaluating the
Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils
(Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance). The guidance document is not
directly related to the potential addition of a vapor intrusion
component to the HRS and more information about this effort will be
provided in a future Federal Register Notice. More information can be
found on EPA's vapor intrusion Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/.

Background

Vapor Intrusion

    When hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants are spilled
on the ground or otherwise migrate to the subsurface, they can move in
the subsurface environment and eventually enter buildings as a gas or
vapor, or even as a liquid in some cases. Dry cleaning solvents and
industrial de-greasers are products that contain hazardous substances
that when released to the environment, can migrate into the soil and
subsurface environment, enter buildings by seeping through cracks in
basements, foundations, sewer lines and other openings and ultimately
result in human exposures. Vapor intrusion is of particular concern
because concentrations of vapors can rise to a point where the health
of residents or workers in those buildings could be at risk. Intrusion
of contaminants in a non-vapor state may also be a pathway of concern
because of the potential for human exposure to the liquids, the
resulting precipitates, or associated vapors.

Statutory Basis

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (``CERCLA or
``the Act'') in response to the dangers posed by uncontrolled releases
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Section
105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA required that the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) include criteria for
determining priorities among releases or threatened releases for the
purpose of taking remedial or removal action. Criteria were to be based
upon relative risk or danger, taking into account the population at
risk, the hazardous potential of the substances at a facility, the
potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human
contact, destruction of sensitive ecosystems, and other appropriate
factors. Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA requires that the statutory
criteria described in section 105(a)(8)(A) be used to prepare a list of
national priorities among the known releases, or threatened releases
throughout the United States, and that at least 400 sites be designated
for priority. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the National
Priorities List (NPL).
    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised NCP, 40 CFR Part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180) pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA
and Executive Order 12316 (48 FR 42237 August 20, 1981). The NCP,
further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November
20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed
to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. The Agency developed the
Hazard Ranking System (``HRS'') to implement Section 105(a)(8)(A). The
HRS was codified as Appendix A of the NCP. The HRS is the primary
mechanism EPA uses to evaluate a site for placement on the NPL.
    CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) in 1986. This amendment required the HRS to be revised to
more accurately assess the relative degree of risk to human health and
the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review.
Revisions to the HRS were proposed in 1988 (53 FR 51962) and
promulgated in 1990 (55 FR 51532). The revisions changed the way EPA
evaluates potential threats to human health and the environment from
hazardous waste sites, as well as

made the HRS more accurate in assessing relative risk. The revisions
included the addition of the human food chain and recreation threats to
the surface water pathway and the addition of a new exposure pathway
(i.e., soil exposure pathway). CERCLA called for the establishment of
both the NPL and the HRS.

National Priorities List

    CERCLA established in Appendix B of the NCP, the NPL, which is also
commonly known as the Superfund List. The NPL is a list of contaminated
sites identified to have known releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United
States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA
in determining which sites warrant further investigation. A site can be
placed on the NPL via three methods (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP
for further information):
     Achieving a score of 28.50 or greater under the HRS;
     Designating by a State or Territory as its top priority
for listing on the NPL (regardless of its HRS score); or
     Using the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) listing mechanism (see 40 CFR.300.66(b)(4) of the NCP for
further information).

Rationale for Adding Vapor Intrusion to the Hazard Ranking System

    In a May 2010 report (EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing
Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites are Expected to Be
Added to the National Priorities List, GAO Report to Congressional
Requesters, GAO-10-380, May 2010), the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) concluded that if vapor intrusion sites are not assessed and, if
needed, listed on the NPL, there is the potential that contaminated
sites with unacceptable human exposure will not be acted upon. GAO
recommended that the EPA Administrator determine the extent to which
EPA will consider vapor intrusion in listing NPL sites and how this
will affect the number of NPL sites listed in the future.
    Many sites on the NPL that have subsurface contaminant intrusion
problems were placed on the NPL by evaluation of pathways other than a
contaminant intrusion pathway. There are other contaminated sites,
however, that did not qualify for placement on the NPL under the
current HRS. However, these sites may qualify for placement on the NPL
if the threat from vapor intrusion was included in the HRS. A new HRS
mechanism would enable EPA to identify situations in which individuals
are exposed or potentially exposed to vapor or other contaminant
intrusion in dwellings, work places, or other structures or enclosures.

Hazard Ranking System

    The HRS is a screening tool used by EPA to assess the relative
threat that sites with actual or potential contaminant releases pose to
human health or the environment. The HRS is the primary mechanism EPA
uses to place a site on the NPL. (As noted earlier, there are two other
mechanisms that can be used to place sites on the NPL.) The sites on
the NPL are then further investigated to determine the extent of the
threat and whether cleanup of the site under EPA's Superfund Remedial
program is warranted. The HRS is a numerically based screening system
that uses information from initial, limited investigations that can be
collected relatively quickly and inexpensively, thus allowing most
Superfund resources to be directed to remedial actions at sites on the
NPL. The HRS does not provide a risk assessment of a specific site, but
serves as a screening level indicator of the highest priority hazardous
releases or potential releases.
    The HRS score is currently based on an evaluation of up to four
separate pathways: ground water migration, soil exposure, surface water
migration, and air migration. Pathways are routes by which exposure to
contaminant releases by human or sensitive environments can occur.
    1. The ground water migration pathway evaluates the likelihood that
hazardous substances will travel through the ground below and
contaminate aquifers and drinking water wells that draw on those
aquifers. The groundwater pathway does not consider the potential risk
of exposure to vapor intrusion from contaminated aquifers.
    2. The surface water migration pathway evaluates the likelihood
that hazardous substances can enter surface water and affect people or
the environment. Threats to humans from this pathway include drinking
water, the human food chain (i.e., contaminants build up in the aquatic
organisms that humans in turn consume), and sensitive environments.
    3. The soil exposure pathway evaluates the potential threats to
humans and terrestrial environments posed by direct, physical contact
with hazardous substances or contaminated soil. This pathway includes
threats to those living on property with hazardous substances or soils
contaminated with hazardous substances, and those living nearby with
access to the property.
    4. Finally, the air migration pathway evaluates the likelihood of
release of hazardous substances into the atmosphere and how many people
and sensitive environments could be exposed to hazardous substances
carried in the air, including gases and particulates. The air migration
pathway does not consider indoor air contamination.
    The scoring system for each pathway is based on a number of
individual factors associated with risk-related conditions at the site.
These factors are grouped into three categories:
    1. Likelihood of exposure (i.e., likelihood that a site has
released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the
environment).
    2. Waste characteristics (i.e., inherent toxicity, mobility of the
substances and the quantity of the hazardous substances that has been
released).
    3. Targets (i.e., people or sensitive environments actually or
potentially exposed to the release).
    The HRS site score, which ranges from 0 to 100, is obtained by
combining the pathway scores. A site may be scored for one or more of
the pathways depending on the nature of the release. Any site scoring
28.50 or greater is eligible for placement on the NPL. As noted
previously, the HRS score does not represent a specified level of risk,
but is a cutoff point that serves as a screening-level indicator of the
highest priority hazardous releases or potential releases based on the
criteria identified in SARA.

Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion Component to the HRS

    Consistent with CERCLA Section 105 and SARA, the Agency regards it
appropriate to consider amending or adding to the HRS when such
amendments would identify sites of the highest priority for evaluation.
EPA is considering the potential enhancement of the HRS by including a
vapor intrusion component that address issues related to the intrusion
of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants into structures
(e.g., homes, offices, schools, manufacturing facilities). To
comprehensively explore, and if determined appropriate, identify
approaches for adding the threat posed by contaminant vapor intrusion
into occupied structures to the HRS, EPA is beginning the process of
soliciting stakeholder input. To determine whether to move forward with
this addition, and if so, to determine a range of potential approaches,
EPA is

soliciting input on the topics described below.
    1. The level and extent of vapor intrusion contamination that would
warrant evaluation for placement on the NPL, as well as the
identification of screening level information sufficient to perform
this evaluation.
    2. Methods for incorporating vapor intrusion into the HRS while, to
the extent possible, maintaining the structure of the other pathways in
the current HRS and retaining that same structure throughout the new
mechanism for vapor intrusion (i.e., likelihood of release, waste
characteristics, and targets). These methods could include the addition
of vapor intrusion as a migration pathway (e.g., groundwater), or part
of an exposure pathway (e.g., threat within a direct exposure pathway
along with soil).
    3. Consideration of the importance of evaluating the potential
threat to populations not demonstrated to be exposed to contaminant
intrusion.
    4. The identification of sampling procedures available and
practical to detect the presence of contamination due to vapor
intrusion.
    5. The availability of screening sampling strategies that can
adequately compensate for the variability in vapor intrusion rates
under different climatic and seasonal conditions.
    6. Identification of analytical methods that are sufficiently
precise and accurate to demonstrate a significant increase in
contaminant levels from vapor intrusion.
    7. The importance of the threat posed by exposure to contaminant
vapor intrusion via inhalation, dermal contact with the vapors or
condensate on surfaces, and ingestion.
    8. The identification of what environmental factors (e.g., porosity
of soil, presence of a contaminated aquifer, climate) and structural
and lifestyle factors (e.g., houses with basements) should
appropriately be considered in determining whether a site warrants
sampling for contaminant vapor intrusion.
    9. In addition to residences, schools and other occupied
structures, the identification of structures in which contaminant vapor
intrusion could result in a significant threat to human health (e.g.,
community recreation centers, cultural centers, museums, athletic
facilities).
    10. The possible need to consider not only contaminant vapor
intrusion, but also intrusion of contaminants in solid (i.e.,
particulates) and liquid forms.
    In addition to these topics, EPA also solicits input on community
outreach methods that would be most effective in gathering and
disseminating information regarding this potential addition to the HRS.
To further support this effort, EPA requests public input on the
identification of possible vapor intrusion sites. This information will
be used for informational purposes only.
    EPA will consider all public input when evaluating whether changes
to the HRS are appropriate, and whether to issue a proposed amendment
to the HRS.

Listening Sessions

    The first listening session will be held in Arlington, VA on
February 24, 2011. Specific details of the listening sessions,
including dates and locations for the other two sessions, and
instructions for those wishing to present oral comments will be posted
at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm. At this
site, users will also be able to sign up for a mailing list that will
be used to distribute logistical information on these listening
sessions. Registration is not required to attend a listening session
with the following exceptions.
    Due to space limitations, parties interested in presenting oral
comments at the Arlington, VA listening session only, must register for
that session. Registration must be completed at least 3 calendar days
prior to the session. Details for registration will be posted on the
Web at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm. If no
speakers have registered by 2 calendar days prior to this listening
session, it will be cancelled and EPA will notify those registered of
the cancellation. The Agency will also post on its Web site that the
listening session has been cancelled.
    In addition to attending in person, participation in the Arlington,
VA listening session will be available via a teleconference. Those
wishing to attend via teleconference must register as described above.
EPA will provide the teleconference information to registrants via e-
mail notification in advance of the session.
    The Arlington, VA listening session will be held at EPA's Potomac
Yard office located at: 2777 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The
listening session will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. The Arlington,
VA listening session may be webcast. Please refer to the Superfund
``Addition of Vapor Intrusion to HRS'' Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm for information on how to access
the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary public
process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise resulting
in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    In general, each oral comment at listening sessions should be
limited to no more than 15 minutes in length. If, however, there are
more individuals who wish to present comments than the allotted time
for the listening session allows, an announcement will be made at the
beginning of the listening session that the time limit has been
adjusted to allow for the presentation of more comments.

    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2011-1934 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65581-65583]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20635]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0932; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01491-E;
Amendment 39-22542; AD 2023-18-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-26-11
for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG (RRD) Model RB211-Trent
875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 engines.
AD 2021-26-11 required replacing the affected fuel pump on at least one
affected engine. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-26-11, the FAA has
determined that replacing all affected fuel pumps on all installed
engines is necessary to address the unsafe condition. This AD was
prompted by reports of single-engine events caused by water
contamination, which led to corrosion on the fuel pump that resulted in
loss of engine thrust. This AD requires replacing the affected fuel
pump on at least one engine before further flight and replacing all
affected fuel pumps within a specified compliance time. This AD would
also prohibit installing any affected engine onto any airplane or any
affected fuel pump onto any engine, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference
(IBR). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 30, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 30,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0932; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone:
+49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA-2023-0932.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-
7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-26-11, Amendment 39-21870 (86 FR
71367, December 16, 2021), (AD 2021-26-11). AD 2021-26-11 applied to
all RRD Model RB211 Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17,
892B-17, and 895-17 engines. AD 2021-26-11 required replacing the
affected fuel pump on at least one affected engine. The FAA issued AD
2021-26-11 to prevent failure of the variable stator vane system.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2023 (88 FR
23583). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2022-0225, dated November 21,
2022 (EASA AD 2022-0225) (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued
by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union. The MCAI states that reports of single-engine events
caused by water contamination resulted in loss of engine thrust. An
investigation determined that certain engines were exposed to
unacceptable levels of water contamination, which caused corrosion on
the fuel pump's internal components. This corrosion led to debris
release and filter blockages in variable stator vane actuator control
units, which resulted in the variable stator vane system failing in the
closed position.
    The FAA has since determined that in addition to replacing the
affected fuel pump on at least one engine before further flight,
replacing all affected fuel pumps installed on all engines within a
specified compliance time and prohibiting installation of any affected
engine onto any airplane or any affected fuel pump onto any engine is
necessary to address the unsafe condition. Subsequently, the
manufacturer published service information, which describes procedures
for replacing the fuel pump.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0932.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the affected
fuel pump on at least one engine before further flight and replacing
all affected fuel pumps within a specified compliance time. In the
NPRM, the FAA also proposed to prohibit installation of any affected
engine onto any airplane or any affected fuel pump onto any engine.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were
American Airlines (AA) and The Boeing Company (Boeing). The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Support for the AD

    Boeing supported the NPRM without change.

Request To Clarify Return of Affected Parts

    AA requested that the FAA clarify whether the intent of the NPRM is
for affected pumps to be returned to Eaton Corporation for
rectification/modification to become eligible for installation, or for
all affected pumps listed in Rolls-Royce Alert Non-Modification Service
Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-73-AK840, Original Issue, dated Sep 13, 2022
(RB.211-73-AK840), to never be reinstalled on any U.S. registered
carrier's engine or aircraft. AA stated that EASA AD 2022-0225 allows
pumps modified by RB.211-73-AK840 to be reinstalled, and since EASA AD
2022-0225 is incorporated by reference, it can be assumed that the NPRM
also allows pumps modified by RB.211-73-AK840 to be reinstalled. AA
also noted that paragraphs (h)(5) and (6) of the proposed AD do not
indicate if an affected pump that is removed from service should be
returned to the Eaton Corporation for rectification/modification.
Additionally, AA noted that if an affected pump is not returned to the
Eaton Corporation for rectification/modification, it will never be
eligible for reinstallation.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The intent of the NPRM is not to require
that the affected parts never be reinstalled on any U.S. registered
carrier's engine or aircraft. If an affected part is repaired, it is no
longer considered to be included in the population of affected parts,
and, therefore, is eligible for reinstallation. However, the FAA cannot
require that an affected part be sent to a specific shop for repair, as
that decision is at the discretion of the operator. Operators may elect
to return affected fuel pumps that have been removed from service to
the vendor, or to an approved facility for repair.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data,
considered the comments received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for
minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0225, which specifies procedures for
replacing the affected fuel pump. EASA AD 2022-0225 also specifies not
to install an affected engine onto any airplane or an affected part
onto any engine.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2022-0225 requires replacing the
affected part within 30 days after November 17, 2021 (the effective
date of EASA AD 2021-0245), this AD requires replacing an affected fuel
pump on at least one engine before further flight after the effective
date of this AD.
    Where paragraphs (3) and (4) of EASA AD 2022-0225 refer to November
17, 2021 (the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0245), this AD requires
using the effective date of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace fuel pump.................  9 work-hours x $85 per           $138,456         $139,221         $278,442
                                     hour = $765.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

 The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2021-26-11, Amendment 39-21870 (86
FR 71367, December 16, 2021); and

0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-18-01 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Amendment 39-22542;
Docket No. FAA-2023-0932; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01491-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 30, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-26-11, Amendment 39-21870 (86 FR 71367,
December 16, 2021).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG Model
RB211-Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and
895-17 engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7314, Engine Fuel
Pump.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of single-engine events caused
by water contamination, which led to corrosion on the fuel pump that
resulted in loss of engine thrust. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the variable stator vane system. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in dual-engine loss of
thrust control or in-flight engine shutdown, and reduced control of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2022-0225, dated November 21, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0225).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0225

    (1) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2022-0225 specifies to
replace the affected part with a fuel pump that is not an affected
part, on at least one of the affected engines within 30 days after
17 November 2021 (the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0245), this AD
requires replacing an affected fuel pump on at least one engine
before further flight after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0225 refers to its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) Where paragraphs (3) and (4) of EASA AD 2022-0225 refer to
November 17, 2021 (the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0245), this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (4) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0225.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0225 specifies to scrap fuel pumps, this AD requires removing those
fuel pumps from service.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0225 specifies to return fuel pumps, this AD requires removing those
fuel pumps from service.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0225
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)
of this AD and email 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.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0225,
dated November 21, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0225, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 19, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20635 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

							                                               OFFICE OF

				PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date:		April 9, 2008

Subject:	Issues to Consider in Commenting on the Revised Risk
Assessments for the Wood Preservative Uses of Creosote (Case 0139)

From:		Jacqueline Campbell-McFarlane, Chemical Review Manager

Registration Management Branch I

Antimicrobials Division

To:		Creosote Docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0248)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or “the Agency”) Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has completed its revised risk assessments
in support of the reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for the wood
preservative uses of creosote.  This document was prepared to help
identify for potential respondents the kind of information that the
Agency believes would be useful in making its reregistration decision.
The revised risk assessments and other support documents are available
for public comment in public docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0248 at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  http://www.regulations.gov/ .

SECTION I: BACKGROUND

EPA is releasing for public comment its revised risk assessments to
support the reregistration eligibility decisions for the three heavy
duty chemical wood preservatives: chromated arsenicals,
pentachlorophenol, and creosote.  Case 0139, Creosote, a restricted use
pesticide, was first registered in the United States in 1948 to protect
wood from rotting due to insect and microbial attack.  Presently, 13
products are registered as industrial wood preservatives for above and
ground wood protection treatments, as well as treating wood in marine
environments.

Publishing revised risk assessments and risk mitigation/exposure
reduction options for public comment is part of EPA’s Six-Phase public
participation process.  The Agency uses this process to involve the
public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions.  After the
60-day public comment period closes, EPA will evaluate the responses
received, update its revised risk assessments as appropriate, and issue
its final risk assessments and reregistration eligibility decision.  The
RED document is currently scheduled to be released in September 2008 and
will present the Agency’s determination on which wood preservative
uses of creosote meet the “no unreasonable adverse effects” standard
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The preliminary risk assessment does not assess non-pressure treatment
uses since EPA issued cancellation orders in August 2004 accepting the
voluntary use termination/ product cancellation requests to either amend
current label language to delete non-pressure treatment uses of creosote
or to cancel the affected products (69 FR 55623).  This action canceled
three pesticide registrations and terminated certain uses of seven
pesticide registrations as of December 31, 2004. EPA’s risk assessment
for previously registered non-pressure treatment uses is available in
docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0248.

SECTION II: CHANGES TO THE RISK ASSESSMENTS

EPA has reviewed new information since the previous risk assessments
were released including submissions received during the Phase 3 public
comment period that ended on December 26, 2003.  Based on this new
information, in addition to making numerous clarifications and minor
changes throughout the documents, EPA has incorporated the following
significant revisions:

The 2003 human health risk assessment relied on benzo(a)pyrene as an
indicator of creosote cancer risk because creosote-specific data were
not available.  Data are now available for creosote to assess cancer
risk.  In conjunction with Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory
Agency (PMRA), a quantitative risk assessment on carcinogenicity of
creosote has been performed, changing the cancer slope factor from 7.3
(mg/kg/day)-1 to   6.28 x10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1.

The 2003 risk assessment estimated a dermal absorption value of 50%.
Newly available data indicate that the dermal absorption is 5%.

All scenarios pertaining to non-pressure treatment uses have been
deleted in this assessment based on the voluntary cancellation of all
non pressure treatment uses of creosote in 2004.

The Ecological Effects Risk Assessment was updated to address concerns
regarding polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) raised by the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS).  In addition, the Sookie Basin field study data
were evaluated.

SECTION III: QUESTIONS

This section provides questions to elicit and guide comments on EPA’s
revised risk assessments.  Note that these questions are offered for
comment and are not meant to imply that EPA intends to complete or
require any of the measures herein.  When submitting comments, please
identify the question(s) you are addressing and include discussions,
explanations, and references where possible.

1. Occupational Risks

Cancer and non-cancer risks posed to treatment plant workers exceed the
Agency’s level of concern.  To reduce similar risks for other
chemicals, EPA has historically required implementation of risk
reduction measures.  These measures are chemical- and risk-specific, and
might include limiting the ways in which or products to which the
chemical may be applied, additional personal protective equipment (PPE),
and/or restricted entry/re-entry intervals.  Risk reduction measures
might also include pressure treatment plant “engineering controls”
such as hydraulic doors, hydraulic bridge rails, and/or a ventilation
system.

What practical and effective measures might EPA implement to reduce
worker exposure during treatment (i.e., pressure treatment workers)?

If the measures identified in 1.a. were to be implemented, what are the
potential economic and/or other impacts to small-, medium-, and
large-sized treatment plants?

If the measures identified in 1.a. were to be implemented, approximately
how much time would it take to implement each measure at a small-,
medium-, and large-sized treatment plant?

What air monitoring data are available in and around plants that
currently use creosote as wood preservatives?

2. Ecological Risks

The ecological risk assessment for creosote indicates a potential for
exposure of listed fish and aquatic invertebrate species.  The aquatic
exposure modeling has been refined and additional data from field,
microcosm, mesocosm, and laboratory studies included to assess the
potential for acute and sublethal risks to fish and aquatic
invertebrates exposed in the water column or in aquatic sediment.
Because guideline toxicity studies are not available for these PAHs, the
Agency used the best available information to evaluate the risks
associated with creosote use.

a.	What practical and effective measures might EPA implement to reduce
ecological exposure associated with the use of creosote-treated wood?

b.	What air monitoring data are available in and around plants that
currently use creosote as a wood preservative?

c.	What data are available to evaluate the effects of PAHs on fish, or
aquatic invertebrate species?

3. Benefits and Alternatives

EPA has reviewed submissions received during the Phase 3 public comment
period that ended on December 26, 2003, as well as Creosote Council’s
December, 2007 presentation on “Creosote Benefits” (available in
docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0248).  EPA is also in the process of
finalizing its own benefits, alternatives, and economic analyses for the
three heavy duty chemical wood preservatives.  These documents will also
be posted in docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0248.

Are there unique uses and benefits of creosote that are not already
captured in the existing documents?

What alternatives, either chemical or non-chemical, exist for heavy duty
wood preservative uses of creosote that are not already captured in the
existing documents?

What information is available on best management practices for using
creosote to pressure treat wood (recommended application methods/times,
storage/disposal instructions, etc.)?

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  4

 US EPA. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision Document (RED)  of Creosote. March 31, 2008.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32825-32826]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-0040]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Draft Guidance for
Industry; How To Prepare a Pre-Request for Designation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910--NEW and
title ``Draft Guidance for Industry; How to Prepare a Pre-Request for
Designation (Pre-RFD).'' Also include the FDA docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Draft Guidance for Industry; How To Prepare a Pre-Request for
Designation (Pre-RFD)

OMB Control Number 0910--NEW

    Since its establishment on December 24, 2002, the FDA Office of
Combination Products (OCP) has served as a resource for sponsors at
various stages of development of their product. Sponsors often seek OCP
feedback on whether their medical product will be regulated as a drug,
a device, a biologic,

or a combination product, and which FDA medical product Agency Center
(Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, or Center for Devices and Radiological Health)
will regulate it, if it is a non-combination product, or will have the
primary jurisdiction for the premarket review and regulation of the
product, if it is a combination product.
    There are two ways that a sponsor can receive such feedback from
OCP. One option is to submit an RFD to receive a formal, binding
determination for the sponsor's product with respect to classification
and/or center assignment that may be changed under conditions specified
in section 563 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360bbb-2) and 21 CFR 3.9 in the regulations. The RFD process is
codified in 21 CFR part 3, and OCP has issued a guidance about this
process (see ``How to Write a Request for Designation'' at https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126053.htm). A second
more flexible option is for a sponsor to submit an inquiry to OCP to
receive a preliminary jurisdictional assessment, which is not binding.
    Many sponsors seek to utilize the flexibility of more approachable
ways to interact with OCP and the medical product Agency Centers to
obtain feedback from the Agency before submitting a marketing
application to the Agency. Over time, these informal methods of
obtaining feedback have become increasingly customary with sponsors,
and for some, even preferable to the formal RFD process. Accordingly,
FDA is enhancing the transparency and consistency of this process,
which will now be called the ``Pre-Request for Designation (Pre-RFD)
Program.''
    This draft guidance describes this structured process with clear
recommendations for sponsors wishing to submit Pre-RFDs. It also
provides the process for review of Pre-RFDs by FDA staff, the general
timeframes for sponsors to receive feedback from OCP, and the process
for scheduling teleconferences and meetings in relation to a Pre-RFD.
    This draft guidance describes how to prepare a Pre-RFD. The
guidance provides recommendations regarding the information that should
be submitted in a Pre-RFD request and procedures that should be
followed for meetings or conference calls between OCP, the Centers, and
industry representatives or sponsors.
    The proposed collections of information are necessary to allow the
Agency to receive Pre-RFD requests in order to implement this voluntary
submission program.
    In the Federal Register of January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4351), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. Although two comments were received, they
were not responsive to the four collection of information topics
solicited and therefore will not be discussed.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                                                  Number of    responses      Total       Average
                    Activity                     respondents      per         annual     burden per  Total hours
                                                               respondent   responses     response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-RFD Submissions............................          136            1          136           12        1,632
Pre-RFD Meetings...............................          136            1          136            1          136
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: July 12, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-15005 Filed 7-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11981]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory
Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management
Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory
Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 26, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn on the Hill, 415
New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee
meeting.

    NOTE: Non-Government attendees to the meeting must go through
security and be escorted to and from the conference room. Attendees
with laptops will be required to register them at the security desk
upon arrival and departure. Agenda items will be posted on http://
www.rtca.org Web site.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 29, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 08-953 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: December 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 77043-77045]
[DOCID:fr18de08-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2006-24163]

National Environmental Policy Act; Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area Operations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard, with the National Marine Sanctuary
Program West Coast Region as a cooperating agency, announces the
availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to
implement enhanced environmental protection measures to the Coast
Guard's operations in the areas of responsibility for Coast Guard
Districts 11 (California) and 13 (Oregon and Washington) for public
review and comment. The DEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of
routine Coast Guard vessel and air operations when engaged in the
following missions and activities: Law enforcement, national security,
search and rescue, aids to navigation, and oil pollution and vessel
grounding response. This analysis does not include live fire exercises.
    Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to
ensure that the full range and significance of issues related to this
proposed action are identified. The Coast Guard has established a Web
site at the address below to provide the public with additional
information. http://pacareaeis.uscg.e2m-inc.com.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before February 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard Docket
Number USCG-2006-24163 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) By mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
the proposed project, or the associated draft Environmental Impact
Statement, contact LT Jeff Bray, Coast Guard Commandant, CG-0942,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Publication of this notice
begins the official 45-day public comment period that will help refine
the alternatives being considered. The Coast Guard provides this notice
to advise the public and other agencies of the Coast Guard's
intentions, to obtain suggestions and information on the issues and
alternatives included in the DEIS, and to request comments from those
parties that may be interested or affected by these proposed
alternatives.
    All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, docket number USCG-2006-24163, and will include
any personal information you have provided.

    If you submit a comment, please include your name and address,
identify the docket number for this notice (USCG-2006-26143), indicate
the specific section of this document to which each comment applies,
and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments by
electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your
comments by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
self-addressed, stamped postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments received during the comment period.

Proposed Action

    The Coast Guard proposes to develop and implement enhanced
protective measures, as necessary, for marine protected species and
marine protected areas that occur in the Eleventh Coast Guard District
(California) (CGD11) and Thirteenth Coast Guard District (Washington
and Oregon) (CGD13) areas of responsibility. The Coast Guard proposes
this action to aid in the fulfillment of its missions, including
protection of the environment, while fulfilling Coast Guard obligations
to protect living marine resources. The Coast Guard published a notice
of intent to prepare this EIS in the Federal Register (71 FR 14233,
March 21, 2006).
    The Proposed Action will be accomplished by (1) establishing a
baseline (i.e., analyzing the No Action Alternative) of the
significance of the environmental impact of current routine Coast Guard
vessel and aircraft operations on the coastal and marine environment
within the CGD11 and CGD13 areas of responsibility, with particular
focus paid to impacts on marine protected species and marine protected
areas; and (2) identifying and analyzing alternative measures which
could be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on marine
protected species and marine protected areas. Specifically, the
Proposed Action is intended to incorporate measures that will help
reduce the environmental impact of Coast Guard vessel and aircraft
operations on marine protected species and marine protected areas when
engaged in the following routine missions and activities: Law
enforcement, national security, search and rescue, aids to navigation,
and oil pollution and vessel grounding response. Live fire exercises
were not included within this analysis. Budget and legal limitations
dictate that any proposed measures be cost effective. Therefore, to be
viable, proposed measures would have to further the Coast Guard's
natural resource protection mission without compromising its ability to
perform other missions.
    The Coast Guard is committed to conducting operations in a manner
that supports conservation and recovery of marine protected species and
marine protected areas. The Proposed Action will further the Coast
Guard's environmental protection mission while recognizing and
supporting accomplishment of the Coast Guard's full mission portfolio.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The DEIS evaluates a variety of actions, listed below as
Alternatives 1 through 6, to determine whether modification or
supplementation of current procedures is required to accomplish the
wide variety of Coast Guard missions in a manner that lessens the
probability of adverse impacts on marine protected species and marine
protected areas. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, documents
baseline strategies the Coast Guard currently employs to protect marine
resources in the CGD11 and CGD13 areas of responsibility. Alternatives
2 through 5 present discrete actions and are evaluated individually to
determine whether their implementation is reasonable and would serve
the purpose and need of minimizing and avoiding negative impacts on
marine protected species and marine protected areas. Alternatives 2
through 5 are designed to augment or otherwise amend all those actions
described in the No Action Alternative. Alternative 6, the Coast
Guard's Preferred Alternative, represents a combination of select
components of Alternatives 1 through 5.
    Alternative 1--No Action Alternative: Under the No Action
Alternative, the Coast Guard would continue current operations, without
augmentation or modification. Existing strategic plans, directives,
guidance, and permits would continue to guide Coast Guard vessel and
aircraft operations in a manner intended to minimize, to the maximum
extent possible, adverse impacts on marine protected species and marine
protected areas. The level of protected living marine resource efforts
would continue to be balanced with other Coast Guard missions and
requirements, and would remain constantly in flux due to other mission
responsibilities and operational tempo.
    Alternative 2--Implement Improved Local Operating Procedures;
Revise Coast Guard Speed and Approach Guidance; and Enhance Law
Enforcement Operations To Include ``Pulse Operations'': This
alternative would amend, append, eliminate portions of, or wholly
incorporate the No Action Alternative and would build upon the existing
Protected Living Marine Resources Program (PLMRP) at each District by
formalizing localized operational mitigation procedures and protection
efforts, strengthening and expanding Coast Guard speed and approach
guidance, and better unifying inter-District and intra-District law
enforcement strategies, including engaging in ``pulse operations.''
    Alternative 3--Enhance Marine Protected Species and Marine
Protected Area Awareness Training for Coast Guard Personnel: This
alternative would amend, append, eliminate portions of, or wholly
incorporate the No Action Alternative and would build upon the existing
PLMRP at each District by requiring the Coast Guard to review, and if
necessary, enhance, training for Officer of the Deck (OOD), coxswain,
vessel lookouts and Air Station personnel.
    Alternative 4--Implement a Web-based Whale Reporting Program: This
alternative would amend, append, eliminate portions of, or wholly
incorporate the No Action Alternative and would build upon the existing
PLMRP at each District by implementing a Whale Reporting Program for
CGD11 and CGD13 surface and aviation units. This reporting program
would establish a real-time, Web-based whale reporting protocol within
the ROI. This program would be maintained centrally by Coast Guard
Pacific Area (PACAREA) personnel and would collect vital information on
real-time locations of live, dead, injured, or entangled whales. The
following information would be collected each time a whale is sighted:
Time and location of sighting; distinctive features of the animal;
estimated length; signs of injury or entanglement; description of
behavior; description of any injuries; condition of carcass for dead
whales; and contact information of reporter. The Web site would allow
for regional sorting so that units could prepare for a patrol by
logging on to the Web site and receiving vital real-time sighting
information for the area they would be transiting or patrolling.
    Alternative 5--Strengthen Partnerships To Facilitate Marine
Protected Species and Marine Protected Area Public Outreach Programs:
This alternative would amend, append,

eliminate portions of, or wholly incorporate the No Action Alternative
and would build upon the existing PLMRP at each District by
strengthening joint partnerships and efforts to support the
conservation and recovery of marine protected species and marine
protected areas.
    Alternative 6--Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred
Alternative, the Coast Guard would further minimize or avoid impacts to
marine protected species and marine protected areas by strengthening
its current operations (No Action Alternative) by incorporating some of
the various additional components described in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5.
Specifically, this would entail:

A. Implementing Improved Local Operating Procedures, Revised Guidance,
and Enhanced Law Enforcement Operations

     Annually review and update formal Protected Living Marine
Resource Programs (PLMRPs) for the Districts.
     Require all Sectors, Air Stations and major Cutters to
designate a Marine Protected Species (MPS) Point of Contact (POC).
     Update and amend speed and approach guidance (e.g.,
Guidance on Vessel Speed and Approach Around Whales message) to include
both vessels and aircraft and continue to update regularly.
     Require each District to plan, execute, and document one
collaborative marine protected species-driven pulse operation per year,
thereby utilizing resources and the subject matter expertise of our
partners.

B. Enhancing In-House Marine Protected Species and Marine Protected
Area Training

     Enhance regional lookout, coxswain, and deck watch officer
skills by providing CGD11 and CGD13 units a standardized regionally-
focused marine protected species awareness training module. Module will
include methods for detecting, identifying, and avoiding marine
protected species and marine protected areas. Require personnel to
demonstrate proof of knowledge of marine protected species sections of
unit SOPs and knowledge of Speed and Approach Guidance.

C. Enhancing Partnerships To Facilitate Marine Protected Species and
Marine Protected Area Outreach and Conservation

     Require each District to participate in one collaborative
marine protected species public outreach campaign per year.
     Broadcast Notice to Mariners (NTMs) advising caution in
known areas of high marine protected species concentration in bays.
     Include National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) educational resources on PACAREA's Internet
public domain.
     Utilize the Coast Guard Auxiliary and Sea Partners Program
as main vehicles for public outreach; provide educational materials to
the Coast Guard Auxiliary and Sea Partners.
    We request comments from all interested parties to ensure that the
full range and significance of issues related to this proposed action
are identified. The Coast Guard requests that comments be as specific
as possible with regard to the issues associated with the proposed
action, alternatives, and analysis.

    Dated: November 24, 2008.
David P. Pekoske,
Vice Admiral, United Stated Coast Guard, Pacific Area Commander.
 [FR Doc. E8-30104 Filed 12-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P