[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57803-57804]
[DOCID:fr22se10-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0490]

Preparation for International Conference on Harmonisation
Steering Committee and Expert Working Group Meetings in Fukuoka, Japan;
Regional Public Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled ``Preparation for ICH Steering Committee and Expert
Working Group Meetings in Fukuoka, Japan'' to provide information and
receive comments on the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)
as well as the upcoming meetings in Fukuoka, Japan. The topics to be
discussed are the topics for discussion at the forthcoming ICH Steering
Committee Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public
input prior to the next Steering Committee and Expert Working Group
meetings in Fukuoka, Japan, November 6 through 11, 2010, at which
discussion of the topics underway and the future of ICH will continue.
    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on October 13, 2010,
from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the Washington Theater
at the Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center,
1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: All participants must register with Jennifer
Haggerty, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: Send registration
information (including name, title, firm name, address, telephone, and
fax number), written material, and requests to make oral presentations
to Jennifer Haggerty (see Contact Person) by 5 p.m. e.s.t. on October
11, 2010.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Jennifer Haggerty (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in
advance.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it can be obtained in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after
submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to
be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office of
Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ICH was established in 1990 as a joint
regulatory/industry project to improve, through harmonization, the
efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal
products in Europe, Japan, and the United States without compromising
the regulatory obligations of safety and effectiveness.
    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is
committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical
procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of
harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical
requirements for medical product development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization
initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and
industry representatives. ICH is concerned with

harmonization among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the
United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the
Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; the Japanese
Pharmaceutical Manufactures Association; the Centers for Drug
Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and
the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH
Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is
provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations. The ICH Steering Committee includes
representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and Health Canada, the
European Free Trade Area and the World Health Organization. The ICH
process has achieved significant harmonization of the technical
requirements for the approval of pharmaceuticals for human use in the
three ICH regions.
    The current ICH process and structure can be found at the following
Web site: http://www.ich.org.
    Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally
or in writing, on issues pending at the public meeting. Public oral
presentations will be scheduled between approximately 4 p.m. and 4:30
p.m. Time allotted for oral presentations may be limited to 10 minutes.
Those desiring to make oral presentations should notify the contact
person by 5 p.m. e.s.t. on October 11, 2010, and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses, telephone number, fax, and email
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation.
    The agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the
Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm225322.htm.

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23642 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81704]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32516]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63582; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6140
(Other Trading Practices)

December 21, 2010.
    On October 29, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 6140 to eliminate the
provisions regarding the handling of stop orders, delete definitions
relating to stop stock transactions, and to relocate the definition of
``initial public offering.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act- \4\ provides that within forty-five
days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule
change, or within such longer period as the Commission may designate up
to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day for the filing submitted by FINRA
will be December 27, 2010.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63256 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69503 (November 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, relating to the
elimination of the FINRA provisions regarding the handling of stop
orders and the deletion of definitions relating to stop stock
transactions, and the comment letters that have been submitted in
connection with the filing.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates February 10, 2011, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32516 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE  (1/1/2007)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [George T. LaRocca,<PHONE_NUMBER>]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Dow AgroSciences LLC]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Dow AgroSciences LLC], [9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268]
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>

<	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for>

<	[spinosad] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [fish, shellfish,
mollusks, and crustaceans] at [4.0] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue of spinosad in plants
(apple, cabbage, cotton, tomato and turnip) and animals (goat and
poultry) is adequately understood for the purpose of these tolerances.
A rotational crop study showed no carryover of measurable spinosad
related residues in representative test crops.>

<2. Analytical method. [There is a practical method (LC-MS_ACPI) for
detecting and measuring levels of spinosad in or on food with a limit of
detection (0.002 ppm) that allows monitoring of food with residues at or
above the level set for these tolerances.  The method had undergone
successful EPA laboratory validation.]>

<3. Magnitude of residues. [In a recent spinosad review  EPA-EFED used
PRZM/EXAMS (R. Parker, 28th July, 2006) to estimate potential spinosad
residues in fish.  In this assessment, EFED assumed 20 consecutive
spinosad applications of 0.1 lb/acre, with a re-treatment interval of 7
days.  No degradation was assumed in the simulation, which used a static
10 cm depth water column with no flow or dilution.  Under these
conditions, EFED estimated a peak spinosad concentration of 489 ppb and
an annual average of 472 ppb.  In estimating possible fish residues, HED
looked to the existing fish bioaccumulation studies on spinosyn A (MRID
43557601) and spinosyn B (MRID 44537734).  In the study with
14C-spinosyn A, a total radioactive residue (TRR) of ~0.5 ppm was
observed in edible tissue following exposure at 19 ppb.  They concluded
that a tolerance of 4 ppm would be appropriate for the combined residues
of spinosyn A and spinosyn D in fish, shellfish, mollusks, and
crustaceans.]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<1. Acute toxicity.  [Spinosad has low acute toxicity.  The rat oral
LD50 is 3738 mg/kg for males and >5000 mg/kg for females, whereas the
mouse oral LD50 is >5000 mg/kg.  The rabbit dermal LD50 is >5000 mg/kg
and the rat inhalation LC50 is >5.18 mg/l air.  In addition, spinosad is
not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs and does not produce significant
dermal or ocular irritation in rabbits.  End use formulations of
spinosad that are water-based suspension concentrates have similar low
acute toxicity profiles.> ]

<2. Genotoxicty. [Short term assays for genotoxicity consisting of a
bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test), and in vitro assay for
cytogenetic damage using the Chinese hamster ovary cells, an in vitro
mammalian gene mutation assay using lymphoma cells, an in vitro assay
for DNA damage and repair in rat hepatocytes, and an in vivo cytogenetic
assay in the mouse bone marrow (micronucleus test) have been conducted
with spinosad.  These studies show a lack of genotoxicity.]>

<3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Spinosad caused decreased
body weights in maternal rats given 200 mg/kg/day by gavage in a
teratology study (highest dose tested).  This was not accompanied by
either embryotoxicity, fetal toxicity, or teratogenicity.  The
no-observed-effect levels (NOELs) for maternal and fetal toxicity in
rats were 50 and 200 mg/kg/day, respectively.  A teratology study in
rabbits showed that spinosad caused decreased body weight gain and a few
abortions in maternal rabbits given 50 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).
Maternal toxicity was not accompanied by either embryotoxicity, fetal
toxicity, or teratogenicity.  The NOELs for maternal and fetal effects
in rabbits were 10 and 50 mg/kg/day, respectively.  In a two-generation
reproduction study in rats, parental toxicity was observed in both males
and females given 100 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).  Perinatal
effects (decreased litter size and pup weight) at 100 mg/kg/day were
attributed to maternal toxicity.  The NOEL for maternal and pup effects
was 10 mg/kg/day.>]

<4. Subchronic toxicity. [Spinosad was evaluated in 13-week dietary
studies and showed NOELs of 4.9 mg/kg/day in dogs, 6 mg/kg/day in mice,
and 8.6 mg/kg/day in rats.  No dermal irritation or systemic toxicity
occurred in a 21-day repeated dose dermal toxicity study in rabbits
given 1000 mg/kg/day.]>

<5. Chronic toxicity. [Based on chronic testing with spinosad in the dog
and the rat, the EPA has set a reference dose (RfD) of 0.027 mg/kg/day
for spinosad.  The RfD has incorporated a 100-fold safety factor to the
NOELs found in the chronic dog study to account for interspecies and
intra-species variation.  The NOELs in the chronic dog study were 2.68
and 2.72 mg/kg/day respectively, for male and female dogs.  The NOELs
(systemic) shown in the rat chronic/carcinogenicity/ neurotoxicity study
were 9.5 and 12.0 mg/kg/day, respectively for male and female rats.
Using the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment published September
24, 1986 (51 FR 33992), it is proposed that spinosad be classified as
Group E for carcinogenicity (no evidence of carcinogenicity) based on
the results of carcinogenicity studies in two species.  There was no
evidence of carcinogenicity in an 18-month mouse feeding study and a
24-month rat feeding study at any dosages.  The NOELs in the mouse
oncogenicity study were 11.4 and 13.8 mg/kg/day, respectively for male
and female mice.  A maximum tolerated dose was achieved at the top
dosage level in both of these studies based on excessive mortality.
Thus, the doses tested are adequate for identifying a cancer risk.
Accordingly, a cancer risk assess is not required. Spinosad did not
cause neurotoxicity in rats in acute, subchronic or chronic toxicity
studies.]>

<6. Animal metabolism. [There were no major differences in the
bioavailability, routes or rates of excretion or metabolism if spinosyn
A and spinosyn D following oral administration in rates.  Urine and
fecal excretions were almost completed in 48-hours post-dosing.  In
addition, the routes and rates of excretion were not affected by
repeated administration. ]>

<7. Metabolite toxicology. [The residue of concern for tolerance setting
purposes is the parent material (spinosyn A and spinosyn D).  Thus,
there is no need to address metabolite toxicity.]>

<8. Endocrine disruption. [There is no evidence to suggest that spinosad
has an effect on any endocrine system.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<1. Dietary exposure. [NA]>

™) software with the food commodity intake database which incorporates
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1989-1992
nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII).
The chronic dietary analysis represents a moderately refined estimate of
dietary exposure using percent crop treated (PCT) estimates, anticipated
residues for meat and milk, and default processing factors.  Inclusion
of fish, shellfish, mollusks, and crustaceans at the proposed tolerance
of 4 ppm gave exposures to the U.S. population of 0.009012 mg/kg/day or
33.4% cPAD.  For children aged one to two years, the estimated exposure
was 0.026893 mg/kg/day or 99.6% cPAD.  When the fraction of fish
potentially exposed was considered, inclusion of spinosad residues had a
minimal effect on the total exposure for any sub-population.  After
inclusion of fish and the fraction potentially exposed to spinosad
residues, the estimated chronic exposure to the U.S. population was
0.008178 mg/kg-bwt/day (30.3% of the cPAD) while exposure to children
aged one to two years of age was 0.025788 mg/kg-bwt/day (95.5% cPAD) for
a difference of 0.000004 mg/kg/day. Adverse effects are not expected for
exposures utilizing less than 100% of the RfD, therefore, chronic
dietary exposure and risk for the general U.S. population and children
are well within the acceptable levels.]

>

<ii. Drinking water. [Since the Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data
to complete a comprehensive exposure and risk for spinosad in drinking
water, drinking water concentration estimates are made on simulation
taking into account data on the physical characteristics of spinosad.

Guidance from EPA has indicated that Tier 1 screening level models, such
as GENEEC and SCI-GROW, maybe used to estimate upper-bound pesticide
residues in surface water and ground water when assessing potential
exposure through drinking water. In a recent assessment (Federal
Register August 6, 2003, FRL-731-3), EPA used FIRST and SCI-GROW models
to estimate the environmental concentrations (EECs) of spinosad in
surface water and ground water.  The EECs for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 2.3 ppb in surface water and 0.037 ppb in ground water.

Estimated spinosad concentrations of 2.3 ppb were incorporated into the
exposure assessment, assuming water from all sources, both direct and
indirect.  The results were that, at a concentration of 2.3 ppb.  The
EPA has concluded that exposure to spinosad from food and water will
utilize 30.3% of the cPAD for the general U. S. population and 95.5% of
the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the sub-population at greatest
exposure.  Adverse effects are not expected for exposures utilizing less
than 100% of the RfD, therefore, chronic dietary exposure and risk for
the general U.S. population and children are well within the acceptable
levels. ]>

<2. Non-Dietary Exposure. [Spinosad is also currently registered for
outdoor use on turf and ornamentals at low rates of application
(0.04-0.54 lb ai/A) that could result in short-term residential
exposure.  Intermediate-term residential exposure is considered
negligible because residues on turf after 30 days were insignificant.
Since dermal post-application exposure is not of concern (no identified
toxicological end-point), only hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth and
incidental ingestion of soil exposures for turf and ornamental uses were
considered for exposure.  The Agency has developed exposure formulas and
estimated doses to theoretically assess residential incidental oral
exposure.  The resulting incidental oral ingestion MOEs from the
residential use of spinosad calculated by the Agency are all below
EPA’s level of concern.  The combined incidental oral MOE is 640 as
posted in Federal Register August 6, 2003 FRL-7317-3.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<[The potential for cumulative effects of spinosad and other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity is also considered.  In terms
of insect control, spinosad causes excitation of the insect nervous
system, leading to involuntary muscle contractions, prostration with
tremors, and finally paralysis.  These effects are consistent with the
activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors by a mechanism that is
clearly novel and unique among known insecticidal compounds.  Spinosad
also has effects on the gamma aminobatopic acid (GABA) receptor function
that may contribute further to its insecticidal activity.  Based on
results found in tests with various mammalian species, spinosad appears
to have a mechanism of toxicity like that of many amphiphilic cationic
compounds.  There is no reliable information to indicate that toxic
effects produced by spinosad would be cumulative with those of any other
pesticide chemical.  Thus, it is appropriate to consider only the
potential risks of spinosad in an aggregate exposure assessment.
Spinosad is classified in a mechanism-of-action group of its own for the
purpose of resistance management in insects and for rotation with other
crop protection products. ]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<1. U.S. Population. [EPA has concluded that chronic dietary exposure to
spinosad from food and water will utilize 30.3% of the cPAD for the
general U. S. population.  Adverse effects are not expected for
exposures utilizing less than 100% of the RfD, therefore, chronic
dietary exposure and risk for the general U.S. population and children
are well within the acceptable levels.  Additionally, all MOEs for
short-term risk are below the level of concern. Thus, based on the
completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the moderately
refined exposure assessment, it is concluded that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population from
short-term or chronic aggregate exposures to spinosad residues from
current and proposed uses. ]>

<2. Infants and children. [FFDCA Section 408 provides that EPA may apply
an additional safety factor for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for pre-natal and post-natal toxicity and
the completeness of the database.  Based on the current toxicological
data requirements, the database for spinosad relative to pre-natal and
post-natal effects for children is complete.  Furthermore, the NOELs in
the dog chronic feeding study which were used to calculate the RfD of
0.027 mg/kg/day are already lower than the NOELs from the developmental
studies in rats and rabbits by a factor of more than 10-fold.  In the
reproductive study in rats, the pup effects shown at the highest dose
tested were attributed to the maternal toxicity.  Also, no neurotoxic
signs have been observed in any of the standard required studies
conducted.  Therefore, it is concluded that there is no indication of
increased sensitivity of infants and children relative to adults and
that an additional FQPA safety factor is not required.

EPA has concluded that chronic dietary exposure to spinosad from food
and water will utilize 95.5% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the
sub-population at greatest exposure.  Adverse effects are not expected
for exposures utilizing less than 100% of the RfD, therefore, chronic
dietary exposure and risk for the general U.S. population and children
are well within the acceptable levels.

(

)

5

6

O

P

k

l

%

&

'

)

*

3

4

Ѐ1摧灚:	㜀Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧灚:Ѐ1摧季fࠀ1萑ｌ葠ｌ摧灚:ᨀ

B*

B*

sment, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to infants and children from short-term and chronic
aggregate exposures to spinosad residues from current and proposed
uses.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<[In 2003, Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted 29 new maximum residue
levels (MRLs) for spinosad and included cotton, almonds, corn, several
fruits and vegetables as well as animal commodities.]

>


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71071-71072]
[DOCID:fr25no05-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R05-OAR-2005-IN-0007; FRL-7999-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's April 8, 2005, submittal
which revises existing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits
for sources in Dearborn County. On April 8, 2005, Indiana submitted its
final rule as published in the Indiana Register. Indiana held public
hearings on the submittal on May 5, 2004 and October 6, 2004. Indiana
is requesting that EPA approve the revisions to Indiana's
SO2 rule for Dearborn County, which removes obsolete rule
language and updates information for sources listed in the rule. These
revisions will not result in an increase in SO2 emissions in
Dearborn County because no emission limits were increased.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal, because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If we do not receive any adverse
comments in response to these direct final and proposed rules, we do
not contemplate taking any further action in relation to this proposed
rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and will respond to all public comments in a subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 27,
2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2005-IN-0007 by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.

    RME, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's
preferred method for receiving comments. Once in the system, select
``quick search,'' then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification
number. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: You may send written comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
    Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R05-OAR-2005-IN-
0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, 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 RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, 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 RME or 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. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to section I(B) of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
RME index at http://www.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME
or in hard copy at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
(Please telephone Charles Hatten at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the
Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886-6031<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information.
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

III. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and the
Corresponding Direct Final Rule?

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action only applies to specific SO2 sources located
in Dearborn County, Indiana.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through RME,
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's SO2
SIP for specified existing stationary sources located in Dearborn
County, Indiana. The SIP revisions amend 326 IAC 7-4-13, by removing
obsolete rule language for the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek
Station. The SIP revision also updates information for other companies
listed in 326 IAC 7-4-13, including adding source identification
numbers. The amendments to this rule are minor, and will not result in
an increase in SO2 emissions in Dearborn County because no
emission limits were increased.

III. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and the
Corresponding Direct Final Rule?

    For additional information, see the Direct Final Rule which is
located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Copies of the
request and the EPA's analysis are available electronically at RME or
in hard copy at the above address. (Please telephone Charles Hatten at
(312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

    Dated: November 10, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-23278 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 41840-41842]
[DOCID:fr19jy10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC10-919-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-919); Comment
Request; Extension

July 13, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006),
(Pub. L. No. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed
information collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due 60 days after publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC10-919-000. Documents
must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with
Commission submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/
submission-guide.asp. eFiling instructions are available at: http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. First time users must follow
eRegister instructions at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
eregistration.asp, to establish a user name and password before
eFiling. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the
sender's e-mail address upon receipt of eFiled comments. Commenters
making an eFiling should not make a paper filing. Commenters that are
not able to file electronically must send an original and two (2) paper
copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/esubscription.asp. In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's
eLibrary at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp, by searching
on Docket No. IC10-919-000. For user assistance, contact FERC Online
Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at: (866)
208-3676 (toll-free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202)273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under FERC-919
(OMB Control No. 1902-0234) ``Electric Rate Schedule Filings: RM04-7-
000 Final Rule: Market Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric
Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities'' is
necessary to ensure that market-based rates charged by public utilities
are just and reasonable as mandated by Federal Power Act (FPA) sections
205 and 206. Section 205 of the FPA requires just and reasonable rates
and charges. Section 206 allows the Commission to revoke a seller's
market-based rate authorization if it determines that the seller may
have gained market power since it was originally granted market-based
rate authorization by the Commission.
    On June 21, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 697 \1\ to modify
subpart H to 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 35. In Order No.
697, the Commission revised and codified market-based rate standards
for generating electric utilities for use in the Commission's
determination of whether a wholesale seller of electric energy,
capacity or ancillary services qualifies for market-based rate
authority. Subpart H contains the regulations necessary to mandate that
sellers submit market power analyses and related reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
72 FR 39,904 (Jul. 20, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 (2007)
(Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market power analyses must address both horizontal and vertical
market power. To demonstrate lack of horizontal market power, two
indicative market power screens are required under Order No. 697: The
uncommitted pivotal supplier screen, which is based on the annual peak
demand of the relevant market, and the uncommitted market share screen
applied on a seasonal basis. These screens examine whether a seller has
the ability to exercise horizontal market power. Sellers that fail
either screen are rebuttably presumed to have market power, and a
seller that fails either screen may submit a delivered price test
analysis to rebut the presumption of horizontal market power. If a
seller fails to rebut the presumption of horizontal market power, the
Commission sets the just and reasonable rate at the default cost-based
rate unless it approves different mitigation based on case-specific
circumstances. For a seller that already makes wholesale sales at
market-based rates, rates are not revoked and cost-based rates are not
imposed until the Commission issues an order making a definitive
finding that the seller has market power or, where the seller accepts a
presumption of market power, an order is issued addressing whether
default cost-based rates or case-specific cost-based rates are to be
applied. Once an order is issued, the Commission revokes the market-
based rate authority in all geographic markets where a seller is found
to have market power.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The seller has the option of withdrawing its market-based
rate request in whole or in part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sellers that own or control more than 500 megawatts of generation
and/or that own, operate or control transmission facilities, are
affiliated with any entity that owns, operates or controls transmission
facilities in the same region as the seller's generation assets, or
with a franchised public utility in the

same region as the seller's generation assets are required to file
updated market power analyses every three years. The updated market
power analyses must demonstrate that a seller does not possess
horizontal market power. A pivotal supplier power analysis and a market
share analysis must be submitted, and if the seller fails either, a
delivered price test analysis must be submitted as well. When
submitting horizontal market power analyses, a seller must use the form
provided in Appendix A of Subpart H and include all materials
referenced.
    To demonstrate a lack of vertical market power, to the extent that
a public utility with market-based rates, or any of its affiliates,
owns, operates or controls transmission facilities, it must have on
file with the Commission, a Commission-approved Open Access
Transmission Tariff (burden reported separately in information
collection 1902-0096). In addition, in order for a seller to
demonstrate that it satisfies the Commission's vertical market power
analysis, it must also demonstrate that neither it nor its affiliates
can erect other barriers to entry. To demonstrate a lack of vertical
market power in wholesale energy markets through the affiliation,
ownership, or control of inputs to electric power production, such as
the transportation or distribution of the inputs to electric power
production, a seller must submit: A description of its ownership or
control of, or affiliation with an entity that owns or controls,
intrastate natural gas transportation, intrastate natural gas storage
or distribution facilities; sites for generation capacity development;
and physical coal supply sources and ownership or control over who may
access transportation of coal supplies. In addition, a seller is
required to make an affirmative statement that it has not erected
barriers to entry into the relevant market and will not erect barriers
to entry into the relevant market.
    Lastly, a seller must submit an asset appendix with its initial
application for market-based rate authorization or updated market power
analysis, and all relevant change in status filings. The asset appendix
must list, among other things, all affiliates that have market-based
rate authority and identify any generation assets owned or controlled
by the seller and any such affiliate. The appendix must list all
generation assets owned (clearly identifying which affiliate owns which
asset) or controlled (clearly identifying which affiliate controls
which asset) by the corporate family by balancing authority area, and
by geographic region, and provide the in-service date and nameplate
and/or seasonal ratings by unit. In addition, the appendix must reflect
all electric transmission and natural gas intrastate pipelines and/or
gas storage facilities owned or controlled by the corporate family and
the location of such facilities. (see subpart H, appendix B for
standard form).
    Wholesale power marketers and wholesale power producers that are
not affiliated with franchised public utilities or transmission owners,
that do not own transmission, and that do not, together with all of
their affiliates, own or control more than 500 MW of generation in the
relevant region are not required to submit updated market power
analyses. The Commission determines which sellers are in this category
through information filed by the utility either when the seller files
its initial application for market-based rate authorization, or through
a separate filing made to request such a determination.
    In early 2005, the Commission clarified and standardized market-
based rate sellers' reporting requirements for any change in status
that departed from the characteristics the Commission relied on in
initially authorizing sales at market-based rates. In Order No. 652,\3\
the Commission required, as a condition of obtaining and retaining
market-base rate authority, that sellers file notices of such changes
no later than 30 days after the change in status occurs. Order No. 697
incorporated minor revisions to the change in status reporting
requirements. The order also codified the requirement that each seller
include an appendix identifying specified assets with each pertinent
change in status notification filed (see subpart H, appendix B for
standard form).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 652 at P 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 697-C, in order to address concerns regarding a
seller's ability to erect barriers to entry through its acquisition of
control of sites for new generation capacity development, the
Commission clarified that all entities with market-based rate
authorization are required to report on a quarterly basis,\4\ the
acquisition of control of a site or sites for new generation capacity
development for which site control has been demonstrated in the
interconnection process and for which the potential number of megawatts
that are reasonably commercially feasible on the site or sites for
which new generation capacity development is equal to 100 megawatts or
more. A notification of change in status that is submitted to report
the acquisition of control of a site or sites for new generation
capacity must include: The number of sites acquired; the relevant
geographic market in which the sites are located; and the maximum
number of megawatts that are reasonably commercially feasible on the
sites reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All other change in status reports must be filed no later
than 30 days after the change in status occurs. 18 CFR 35.42 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market power analyses required by Order No. 697 helps to inform
the Commission as to whether an entity seeking market-based rate
authority lacks market power, and whether sales by that entity will be
made at rates that are just and reasonable. The updated market power
analyses allow the Commission to monitor changes in a seller's market
power or potential abuses of market power, and enable the Commission to
determine whether continued market-based rate authority will still
yield rates that are just and reasonable. Market-based rate tariffs
with standard provisions improve the efficiency of the Commission in
its analysis and determination of whether a seller satisfies the
requirements for market-based rate authority. These standardized
market-based rate tariffs help to reduce document preparation time by
applicants and sellers, and provide utilities with the clearly defined
requirements of the Commission.
    ACTION: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
FERC-919 reporting requirements, with no changes.
    Burden Statement: The estimated annual burden follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                                                                    respondents      Hours per     Total annual
                FERC-919 (Orders 697-A, B, C, D)                      filing         response          hours
                                                                     annually
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market power analysis in new applications for market-based rates             155             250          38,750
 (required in 18 CFR 35.37(a))..................................

Triennial market power analysis in category 2 seller updates                  74              40           2,960
 (required in 18 CFR 35.37(a))..................................
Quarterly land acquisition reports (required in 18 CFR 35.42(d))              40               4             160
Appendix B addition to change in status reports 18 CFR 35.42(a).             400               1             400
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................................  ..............  ..............          42,270
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $2,801,891
(42,270 hours/2080 hours \5\ per year, times $137,874 \6\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Estimated number of hours an employee works each year.
    \6\ Estimated average annual cost per employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17556 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31675-31676]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review for
Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for
Bob Hope Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') and 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 by the
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, Burbank, California. This
program was submitted subsequent to a determination by FAA that
associated noise exposure maps submitted under 14 CFR part 150 for Bob
Hope Airport were in compliance with applicable requirements, effective
October 10, 2013, 78 FR 64048-64049. The proposed noise compatibility
program will be approved or disapproved on or before November 7, 2016.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the start of FAA's review
of the noise compatibility program is May 11, 2016. The public comment
period ends July 11, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Globa, Federal Aviation
Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office, P.O. Box 92007,
Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 310/725-3637. Comments
on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be submitted to
the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for Bob Hope Airport
which will be approved or disapproved on or before November 7, 2016.
This notice also announces the availability of this program for public
review and comment.
    An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part
150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility
program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has
taken or proposes to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent
the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.

    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Bob Hope Airport, effective on April 6, 2016. The airport operator has
requested that the FAA review this material and that the noise
mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and
surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program
under section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted
material indicates that it conforms to 14 CFR part 150 requirements for
the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review
will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The
formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be
completed on or before November 7, 2016.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 150, section 150.33. The primary
considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed
measures may reduce the level of aviation safety or create an undue
burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and whether they are
reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-
compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-
compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to
these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use
authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed noise compatibility
program are available for examination at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Office,
Airports Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne,
California 90261.
Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office,
15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3000, Hawthorne, California 90261.
Bob Hope Airport, Attention: Mr. Mark Hardyment, 2627 Hollywood Way,
Burbank, California 91505.

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on May 11, 2016.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, AWP-600, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-11814 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7187-7188]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD11-6-000]

Priorities for Addressing Risks to the Reliability of the Bulk-
Power System; Reliability Technical Conference Panel

February 2, 2011.
    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on
December 16, 2010, the Commission will hold a technical conference on
Tuesday, February 8, 2011, to discuss policy issues related to
reliability of the Bulk-Power System, including priorities for
addressing risks to reliability. Attached hereto is a modified agenda
that includes a list of the panelists that have been asked to address
the topics previously identified in the Agenda issued in this docket on
January 7, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09FE11.011

Reliability Technical Conference

February 8, 2011
10 a.m.-5 p.m.

Agenda

10 a.m. Commissioners' Opening Remarks.
10:20 a.m. Remarks; The Honorable Trent Franks, U.S. House of
Representatives.
10:35 a.m. Introductions; Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, Chair.
    10:40 a.m. Panel 1: Discussion of Current Issues and Identifying
Priorities.

    Presentations: Panelists will be invited to express their general
views on how current reliability issues and standards development
initiatives can be ranked and prioritized to ensure that the key
reliability issues are addressed first. Panelists will be asked to
address some or all of the following:

    a. What are the most significant risks to the reliability of the
Bulk-Power System? Do the current Reliability Standards effectively
address these risks? If not, what processes should be used by industry,
the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) and the Commission
to address these risks?
    b. What are the most critical reliability issues and/or standards
development initiatives that need to be addressed in 2011? What are the
biggest challenges to addressing these issues and/or completing these
initiatives in an effective and timely manner? What next steps are
appropriate to timely and effectively address the priorities discussed?
    c. How do NERC and reliability standards development teams
incorporate in new priorities and/or Commission directives regarding
reliability standards into their work plans?
    d. How do NERC's non-standards processes such as the Industry
Alerts, Recommendations, Event Analysis, Essential Actions, Lessons
Learned and Compliance Application Notices interact with the
reliability standards? To what extent do these processes aid in
identifying important reliability matters that are not addressed under
the existing Reliability Standards?
    e. Going forward, what can the Commission do to assist NERC?

11:45 a.m. Lunch
12:30 p.m. Continuation of Panel 1

    Discussion with Commissioners: Open dialogue and questions and
answers between Panel 1 and Commissioners.
    Panelists (Panel 1):
     John Q. Anderson, Chairman of the Board, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
     Gerry W. Cauley, President and Chief Executive Officer,
North American Electric.
     Reliability Corporation (NERC).
     Kevin Burke, Chairman, President and CEO, Consolidated
Edison Inc.
     Roberta S. Brown.
     Mike Smith, President and CEO, Georgia Transmission Corp.
     Hon. Betty Ann Kane, Chairman, DC Public Service
Commission.
     John Anderson, President, Electricity Consumers Resource
Council (ELCON).
     Lonnie N. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Santee Cooper.

1:30-3 p.m. Panel 2: Emerging Issues

    Panelists will address more specifically their views regarding the
emerging issues of the Bulk Power System. Panelists will be asked to
address some or all of the following:
    a. How do you expect the Bulk Power System to change in the next
decade? What are the most critical new and emerging challenges facing
the power grid?
    b. Do the CIP standards assure cyber security, including protecting
against sophisticated and fast-moving threats? What role do you expect
Smart Grid to play in the Bulk Power System and will the Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards adequately assure grid
reliability under Smart Grid applications? If not, how should NERC
address these issues?
    c. Will Smart Grid applications have non-cyber reliability
implications that need to be addressed?
    d. What steps are currently being taken to address the
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) issue? Which Reliability Standards cover
EMP and do they adequately address the issue?
    e. Are there any other emerging reliability issues that NERC,
industry and the Commission should consider addressing?
    f. How can emerging issues that are identified be effectively and
timely resolved while addressing NERC's other priorities?
    Panelists (Panel 2):
     John Q. Anderson, Chairman of the Board, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
     Gerry W. Cauley, President and Chief Executive Officer,
North American Electric.
     Reliability Corporation (NERC).
     Ronald L. Litzinger, President, Southern California Edison
Company.
     Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive
Officer, Bonneville Power Administration.
     Stephen G. Whitely, President and Chief Executive Officer,
New York Independent System Operator.
     Randy Vickers, Director, United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT).
     Avi Schnurr, President, Electric Infrastructure Security
Council.
     Ed Tymofichuk, Vice-President, Transmission, Manitoba
Hydro.

3:15-5 p.m. Panel 3: Next Steps and Wrap-up

    Panelists will address more specifically their views regarding what
steps and processes are necessary to effectively address the issues
critical to the reliability of the Bulk Power System:
    a. Does NERC have the necessary resources, tools, and authority to
address these issues? Are NERC and Commission processes and procedures
adequate to address the reliability priorities and issues discussed
above? What can the Commission do to assist NERC?
    b. What part of the discussion today was most helpful? What further
discussion or guidance is needed?
    c. How often should reliability summits like this occur? What other
forums should we use to communicate about these and other critical
reliability issues?
    Panelists (Panel 3):
     Gerry W. Cauley, President and Chief Executive Officer,
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
     Hon. Betty Ann Kane, Chairman, DC Public Service
Commission.
     John Anderson, President, Electricity Consumers Resource
Council (ELCON).
     John Q. Anderson, Chairman of the Board, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
     Kevin Burke, Chairman, President and CEO, Consolidated
Edison Inc.
     Lonnie N. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Santee Cooper.
     Mike Smith, President and CEO, Georgia Transmission Corp.
     Randy Vickers, Director, United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT).
     Roberta S. Brown.
     Stephen G. Whitely, President and Chief Executive Officer,
New York Independent System Operator.
     Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive
Officer, Bonneville Power Administration.

[FR Doc. 2011-2806 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65204-65206]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0631; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-142-AD;
Amendment 39-17640; AD 2013-22-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked pick-up
bracket of the forward outboard pylon of the number 1 engine due to
stress corrosion. This AD requires repetitive inspections and,
depending on findings, repair of the pylon pick-up brackets. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pick-up bracket,
which could result in the engine pylon separating from the wing, with
consequent damage to the airplane and reduced controllability.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0631; or in person at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46301).
The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0136, dated July 20, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    While carrying out a scheduled environmental inspection, an
operator found a cracked number 1 engine forward outboard pylon
pick-up bracket. Cracks were present on the upper flange of the
bracket running between all 3 attachment bolt holes. Subsequent
investigation revealed that the cause of cracking was stress
corrosion. Cracking of the pylon pick-up brackets at the top and
bottom flanges could reduce the capability of the brackets to
support the ultimate sideload, particularly if cracking is present
on more than one flange.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the engine pylon separation from the wing, likely resulting in
damage to [and controllability of] the aeroplane and possible injury
to persons on the ground.
* * * * *
    For reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
inspection and, depending on findings, repair of the affected pylon
pick-up brackets.

    The inspection includes a special detailed inspection with a
videoscope. Corrective actions can include replacing any affected pylon
pick-up brackets, and doing any follow-on skin repairs. You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0631-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 46301, July 31,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed--except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 46301, July 31, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46301, July 31, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0631-0002; or in
person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the MCAI, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 adding the following new AD:

2013-22-08 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-17640.
Docket No. FAA-2013-0631; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-142-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe
146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-
RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category, all
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked pick-up bracket of
the forward outboard pylon of the number 1 engine due to stress
corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the pick-up bracket, which could result in the engine pylon
separating from the wing, with consequent damage to the airplane and
reduced controllability.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    (1) Within the initial compliance time specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 24 months: Do a special detailed
inspection with a videoscope of the flanges of the Rib 10 forward
pylon pick-up bracket of each engine pylon for cracking, corrosion,
and other defects, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-073, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2012; or Revision
2, dated March 8, 2012.
    (i) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, except
as provided by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes on which a maintenance records check
positively determines that both forward pylon pick-up brackets have
been replaced since first flight of the airplane: Within 20 months
after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, any cracking, corrosion or other defect of any Rib 10
forward pylon pick-up bracket is found: Before further flight,
repair or replace the bracket as specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Repair a bracket in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-073, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2012; or Revision
2, dated March 8, 2012.
    (ii) Replace a bracket using a method approved by either the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or
its delegated agent).
    (3) Repairing or replacing a Rib 10 forward pylon pick-up
bracket, as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, does not
terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.57-073, dated September 6, 2010, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-
0136, dated July 20, 2012, for related information. You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0631-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.57-073, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2012.
    (ii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-073, Revision 2, dated March 8, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 17, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25627 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Abbreviated Version  RCRA STATUTORY CHECKLIST

Introduction

To obtain final authorization, a State must have the enabling authority
to establish a hazardous waste management program which meets the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 271, Subpart A.  In addition, as a result of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Pub, L. 98—618 (Nov.
 8, 1984) [HSWA] amending the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C.  §6901 et. seq., all authorized States, and all States seeking
authorization, must revise their programs to reflect the HSWA.  Finally,
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 271, Subpart A, State statutes must
provide for, among other things, the right of inspection of regulated
facilities, civil and criminal remedies for violation of program
requirements, and availability of information to the public.  States may
need to provide additional information on statutes that may not be
directly associated with the hazardous waste program but have the
potential to indirectly impact implementation, administration, and/or
enforcement of the authorized program.

What is it used for?

The RCRA Statutory Checklist is provided to aid attorneys and others in
reviewing and documenting statutory provisions required for
authorization under Section 3006(b) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.  States are advised to look broadly to
their legislative authorities in assessing their programs.  It is also
provided to aid attorneys and others in documenting and reviewing a
State’s enabling authority as a result of renumbering, restructuring,
or changes to the State’s statutes that may impact authorization. EPA
attorneys are encouraged to involve attorneys in a State’s Attorney
General’s Office or other State legal counsel during such reviews.

The RCRA Statutory Checklist is intended for use as an evaluation tool,
and it provides valuable assistance to EPA reviewers if submitted as
part of the application for authorization of changes initiated by
Federal rulemaking, as well as State-initiated changes to the State’s
statutes.

Under what circumstances do we recommend  use of the abbreviated
version?

We recommend use of this abbreviated version of the RCRA Statutory
Checklist in lieu of the full RCRA Statutory Checklist in situations
where State authority is broadly written such that use of the full RCRA
Statutory Checklist would be overly repetitive and unnecessary.
Examples of situations where we do not recommend use of this abbreviated
checklist include instances where:

(1)	multiple State agencies share responsibility for regulation of
hazardous waste under different statutes,

(2)	statutory authorities were drafted and enacted with very specific
enumeration of agency powers and duties, and

(3)	statutes contain specific limitations on agency powers that do not
have analogs in RCRA.

Anyone using the checklist should refer to Part 271 (and the regulations
in Parts 260-265, 266, 268, 270, 273, 279, and 124 to the extent they
are referenced in Part 271) for a full understanding of the regulations
for which a State must have enabling authority and for enforcement
authorities required for authorization.  In addition, the full version
of the RCRA Statutory Checklist contains guidance that may be useful.
Users should look at all relevant statutes, not just the hazardous waste
statutes, when assessing the hazardous waste program.  For example,
State administrative procedures acts, self-audit laws, and confidential
business information protections would be relevant.

The statutory checklist is intended for use as an evaluation tool and to
assist EPA to understand the State’s enabling authority, as well as
providing useful documentation for the State and EPA.  The statutory
checklist is not intended to identify State statutory provisions that
are authorized to operate in lieu of the federal program, nor does it
authorize the State statutory provisions listed in the checklist.  It
should not be referenced in a Federal Register notice authorizing a
State’s hazardous waste program; nor should it be referenced when the
State’s program is codified in 40 CFR part 272.

Abbreviated Version

RCRA STATUTORY CHECKLIST1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

	I.
DEFINITIONS……………………………………………………
……………...	1

	II.	HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING  [See 40 CFR
§271.9]………………………………………………………
…………………...	1

	III.	STANDARDS FOR GENERATORS [See 40 CFR
§271.10]…………………...	2

	IV.	STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTERS  [See 40 CFR
§271.11]……………….	2

	V.	STANDARDS FOR HW STORAGE, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES  [See
40 CFR 271.12]……………………………………………...	2

	VI.	LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS  [See 40 CFR 271.25]
…………………...	3

	VII.	PERMITS FOR HW STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

		[See 40 CFR 271.13 and
271.14]………………………………………………...	3

	VIII. 	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION [See 40 CFR
271.14]……………………………...	5

	IX.  	REQUIREMENTS FOR USED OIL MANAGEMENT [See 40 CFR 271.26]…	5

	X.  	INSPECTIONS  [See 40 CFR
271.15]…………………………………………...5

	XI.  	ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES (INCLUDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
ENFORCEMENT)  [See 40 CFR
271.16]……………………………………….	5

	XII. 	SHARING OF INFORMATION WITH EPA [See 40 CFR
271.17]……………	6

	XIII.  	EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENTS…………………………………………………...
6

	XIV.  	RADIOACTIVE MIXED
WASTE………………………………………………	6

	XV. 	AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION [See 40 CFR
271.17]…………………..	7

	XVI.  	ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS
AUTHORITIES………………………….	.7[STATE NAME] RCRA STATUTORY
CHECKLIST

(Abbreviated Version)

Page 2 of 9

[STATE NAME] RCRA STATUTORY CHECKLIST

(Abbreviated Version)

Page 1 of 9

Title(s) of Legislation: chapter 70.105 RCW  	Date Enacted: 2009

 	Hazardous Waste Management Act

Title(s) of Legislation: RCW 70.105D.030(1)(d)  	Date Enacted: 2009

	 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Model Toxics Control Act

Title(s) of Legislation: RCW 70.94.331(2)(c)
Date Enacted: 2009

            Washington Clean Air Act

Title(s) of Legislation: chapter 42.56 RCW
Date Enacted: 2009

             Public Records Act

 	 	_____________

Date Prepared: May 3, 2010

Statutory ElementPart 271

ReferenceRCRA CiteState CiteI.     DefinitionsNote that 40 CFR Part 271
does not specifically address definitions of terms.   However, the
Federal program relies on various definitions for establishing the
applicability and scope of the hazardous waste regulations.  If
definitions of these terms appear in state statutes, they should be at
least as stringent as the analogous Federal statutory or regulatory
definition.   The State should have the authority to define the
following terms in a manner at least as stringent as the Federal
program:DisposalN/A§ 1004(3)RCWs:

70.105.130

 70.105.145 70.105D.030(1)(d)GeneratorN/ANot in RCRA; see 40 CFR 260.10
defn."Hazardous waste2N/A§ 1004(5)"ManifestN/A§ 1004(12)"PersonN/A§
1004(15)"StorageN/A§ 1004(33)"TransportN/ANot in RCRA; see 40 CFR
260.10 defn. of “transportation”"TreatmentN/A§ 1004(34)"Treatment,
Storage or Disposal facilityN/ANot in RCRA; see 40 CFR 260.10 defn. of
“facility”"Waste (solid)N/A§ 1004(27)"Remarks of the Attorney
General/Independent Counsel:

II.     HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING [See 40 CFR
§271.9]1.Authority to adopt a set of characteristics for identifying
hazardous waste and a list of hazardous wastes that are no less
stringent than, and consistent with, the Federal program, and to control
all hazardous wastes controlled under 40 CFR part 261.271.9(a)§§
3001(a), (b), (d), (e), (i) and 3018(b)RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)2.Delisting (Optional): Authority to provide a
delisting mechanism with regulations that are equivalent to 40 CFR
260.20(b) and 260.22 and that meets the requirements of RCRA §
3001(f)(1) & (2)271.9(b)§ 3001(b) and (f)"Remarks of the Attorney
General/Independent Counsel:

III.	STANDARDS FOR GENERATORS [See 40 CFR §271.10]Authority to regulate
all generators EPA regulates under 40 CFR Part 262 and to adopt
requirements that are no less stringent than, and consistent with, the
Federal generator requirements.271.10§§ 3001, 3002, & 3017RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

IV.     STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTERS [See 40 CFR §271.11]Authority to
regulate all transporters EPA regulates under 40 CFR Part 263 and to
adopt requirements that are no less stringent than, and consistent with,
the Federal transporter requirements.	271.11§ 3001

§ 3003RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

V.     STANDARDS FOR HW STORAGE, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES [See
40 CFR 271.12]1.Authority to regulate all owners and operators of
hazardous waste management facilities that EPA regulates under 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 266 and to adopt technical standards, requirements, and
prohibitions that are no less stringent than, and consistent with, the
Federal TSD facility requirements.271.12§ 3004RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)2.Authority to require corrective action in a manner
that is no less stringent than, and consistent with, the Federal
corrective action requirements.271.12§ 3004(u) and (v), and
3004(a)(6)"Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

VI.     LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS [See 40 CFR 271.25]Authority to enact
land disposal restrictions that are no less stringent than, and
consistent with, the Federal land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR Part
268.	271.25§ 3004(d)-(g), (j) and (m)RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

VII.     PERMITS FOR HW STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES [See
40 CFR 271.13 and 271.14]1.Authority to require permits for owners and
operators of all TSD facilities in a manner that is no less stringent
than, and consistent with, the Federal permit program under 40 CFR Parts
270 and 124.271.13(a)	§ 3005(a)RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)2.Authority to require permit application information
(including exposure information) and to issue permits containing all
technical and administrative standards for facilities and any conditions
necessary to protect human health and environment271.13(a)

271.14	§ 3005(b)

§ 3005(c)(3)

§ 3005(g)

§ 3019(a)"3.Authority to provide for permit modification and
termination (revocation) in a manner that is no less stringent than, and
consistent with, the Federal program. 271.13(d) 271.14§ 3005(c)

§ 3005(d)"4.Interim Status:  Authority to authorize owners or operators
of TSD facilities to operate under interim status if the facility would
qualify for interim status under the Federal program.3271.13(a)§
3005(e)(1)"5.Interim Status: Authority to require  interim status to
terminate under conditions that are equivalent and consistent with the
Federal program.4271.13(a)	§ 3005(e)(2) and (3)"6.Interim Status:
Authority to require interim status facilities to comply with standards
at least as stringent as those in 40 CFR Part 265.271.13(a)	§
3005(e)(1)

§ 3005(h)

§ 3005(i)

§ 3015"7.Interim Status: Authority to require interim status
impoundments to comply with the double liner, leachate collection and
ground-water monitoring requirements applicable to new units or stop
treating, receiving or storing hazardous wastes. (SR1)5271.13(a)§
3005(j)"8.(Optional): Authority to modify the double liner, leachate
collection and groundwater monitoring requirements for impoundments in
§ 3005(j)(1) if prior to October 1, 1984,  the owner/operator has
entered into a consent decree, order, agreement with EPA or an
authorized State which requires correction and provides protection of
health and environment at least equivalent to that in § 3005(j)(1).
(SR2)5271.13(a)	§ 3005(j)(2)-(9) and (j)(13)"Remarks of the Attorney
General/Independent Counsel:

VIII.     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION [See 40 CFR 271.14]Authority to adopt
public participation procedures for the permit process.
271.14(v)-(aa)§ 7004(b) "Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent
Counsel:

IX.     REQUIREMENTS FOR USED OIL MANAGEMENT [See 40 CFR
271.26]Authority to promulgate regulations establishing special
generator and transporter standards, performance standards, and other
requirements as may be necessary to protect health and the environment
from hazards associated with recycled used oil, as specified in 40 CFR
Part 279.6271.26§ 3014(a), (c) and (d)6RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

X.     INSPECTIONS [See 40 CFR 271.15]Authority to enter, inspect and
obtain samples (at all regulated premises and any location where records
are kept).271.15(c)§ 3007RCW 70.105.130

42 USC 6927Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

XI.     ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES (INCLUDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
ENFORCEMENT)7 [See 40 CFR 271.16]1.Authority to immediately restrain
unauthorized activity.271.16(a)(1)§ 300670.105.095

70.105.1202.Authority to sue to enjoin any threatened or continuing
program violation without prior revocation of permit.271.16(a)(2)§
300670.105.1203.Authority to obtain civil penalties for any violation
(maximum no less than $10K per day).271.16(a)(3)(i), (b), and (c)§
300670.105.0804.Authority to obtain criminal penalties for specified
maximum violations (no less than $10K per day and imprisonment with
maximum no less than 6 months); burden of proof no greater than under
Federal law 271.16(a)(3)(ii) and (b)§ 300670.105.080

70.105.0855.Authority to allow public intervention.271.16(d)	§ 7004
70.105.1456.Optional: Require that neither the State nor citizens may
bring action against common carriers for imminent hazards arising after
delivery of the shipment to the consignee, provided the carrier
exercised due care when handling the work.Not required	§ 7002(g)

§ 7003(a)Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

XII.     SHARING OF INFORMATION WITH EPA [See 40 CFR 271.17]Authority to
share all information with EPA271.17(a)§ 3007(b)Chapter 42.56
RCWRemarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

XIII.  EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS

Authority to make exposure and health assessment information available
to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (See CERCLA §
104(i)) (SI)5Not in 40 CFR Part 271§ 3019(b)(1)Chapter 42.56 RCWRemarks
of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

XIV.     RADIOACTIVE MIXED WASTEAuthority to regulate hazardous waste
that is radioactive except to the extent that the waste is source,
special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended. (68 Stat. 923) (MW)5, 8 271.9(a)§ 1004(27)RCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)Remarks of the Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

XV.     AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION [See 40 CFR 271.17]

Authority to make information about treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities available to the public in substantially the same manner and
to the same degree as if EPA were running the program (AI)5271.17(c)§
3006(f)Chapter 42.56 RCWRemarks of the Attorney General/Independent
Counsel:

XVI.  ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES1.Authority to grant variances
and exemptions that are no less stringent than allowed by Subtitle C of
RCRA.9Not requiredN/ARCWs

70.105.130

70.105.145

70.105D.030(1)(d)2.Importation ban.10Not requiredN/A"3.Siting.11Not
requiredN/A"4.Authority to adopt existing and/or future Federal
regulations by reference (current and prospective incorporation by
reference).12N/AN/A70.105.1305.Limitation on State authority to adopt
more stringent or broader in scope provisions.N/AN/ARemarks of the
Attorney General/Independent Counsel:

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 1.	The statutory checklist is intended for use as an evaluation tool
and to assist EPA to understand the State’s enabling authority, as
well as providing useful documentation for the State and EPA.  The
statutory checklist is not intended to identify State statutory
provisions that are authorized to operate in lieu of the federal
program, nor does it authorize the State statutory provisions listed in
the checklist.  It should not be referenced in a Federal Register notice
authorizing a State’s hazardous waste program; nor should it be
referenced when the State’s program is codified in 40 CFR part 272.

 2.	The State must have authority to regulate the recycling and reuse of
hazardous waste in a manner at least as stringent as the Federal
program.

 3.	States are not required to provide interim status for TSD
facilities.  However, if a State chooses to provide for interim status,
then the State must have authority described in items 4 through 8 of
Section VII.

 4.	A State’s analog to interim status must terminate automatically in
these cases (whether the state’s analog is Part 265 type standards or
permits).  If a State statute or regulation would require any type of
hearing to terminate the facility’s operating authority, the State
must amend its authority to delete that requirement for these
provisions.  (Interim status as used here means the state’s analog to
Federal interim status.)

 5.	The following items are a part of the “Statutory (Non-Checklisted)
Provisions addressed in Appendix N of the hardcopy version of the State
Authorization Manual (SAM) -- Guidance for State Authorization Issues:

AI	-	Availability of Information

MW	-	Mixed Waste

SI	-	Sharing of Information

SR1	-	Surface Impoundment Requirement

SR2	-	Optional: Exemptions from the Surface Impoundment Requirements)

Also, see the Availability of Information Checklist for a specific
analysis of the manner and degree that EPA provides for availability of
information.

 6.	This used oil management authority originated at RCRA § 3012, but
was amended and redesignated as § 3014(a) by HSWA.

 7.	Note that RCRA contains enforcement provisions that differ from
those listed in 40 CFR 271.16.  Thus, the enforcement authority of an
authorized State program need not be equivalent to the RCRA enforcement
provisions.  Instead, a State’s authority should be adequate to meet
the requirements listed in 40 CFR 271.16 which were established pursuant
to RCRA §§ 3006 and 7004.

 8.	EPA has determined that hazardous wastes are subject to RCRA if they
are mixed with source, special nuclear or byproduct material even though
source, special nuclear, or byproduct itself is not subject to RCRA.
States will need to review their authority to ensure that only source,
special nuclear, or byproduct material is excluded from their hazardous
waste jurisdiction.

 9.	Various HSWA provisions amend RCRA to allow EPA to grant variances
and exemptions.  In addition to those variances specifically authorized
by statute, the HSWA allows EPA to develop regulations with variance
provisions or to make case-by-case variance decisions.  EPA strongly
recommend States obtain the above authority.  The State’s variance
procedures and decision criteria must be no less stringent than EPA’s.

 10.	May create problems for a State seeking authorization.  States with
this authority should ensure that its statutory and regulatory
provisions do not conflict with EPA’s requirements for imports/exports
and transportation.

 11.	May create problems for a State seeking authorization.  States with
this authority should ensure that its statutory and regulatory
provisions do not conflict with EPA’s requirements for permitting.

 12.	For prospective incorporation of the Federal regulations by
reference, the Attorney General or Independent Legal Counsel must cite
State authority that enables it both to promulgate and enforce
regulations in this manner.  States which incorporate by reference
prospectively, should provide a discussion on the constitutionality of
the procedure within the State.  Appropriate court case citations should
also be provided.