[Federal Register: April 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 70)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18776-18778]
[DOCID:fr13ap10-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0931]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Galveston Channel, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation
area across the entire width of the Galveston Channel in the vicinity
of Sector Field Office (SFO) Galveston. This regulated navigation area
would require vessels to navigate at no wake speeds within this area.
Vessel transits at greater than minimum safe speed and causing wake in
this area would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or a designated representative.
This regulated navigation area is needed to protect the Coast Guard
Sector Field Office (SFO) Galveston vessels, break wall, and piers from
further damage associated with excessive wake and to protect ongoing
base construction.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0931 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant junior grade Margaret
Brown, Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0931), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0931'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0931'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please

explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation area
in Galveston Channel to protect the surrounding areas from the harmful
effects of excessive wake. This regulated navigation area would require
vessels to navigate at minimum safe speeds which produce no wake within
the area of the Coast Guard SFO Galveston, Texas. Vessel transits at
greater than minimum safe speed and causing wake in this area would be
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Houston-Galveston or a designated representative. This regulated
navigation area is needed to protect the Coast Guard vessels, break
wall, and piers from further damage associated with excessive wake and
to protect ongoing base construction.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation area
in Galveston Channel within the area from Latitude 29[deg]20'19'' N,
Longitude 094[deg]46'36'' W, east to Latitude 29[deg]20'06'' N,
Longitude 094[deg]46'15'' W, south to Latitude 29[deg]19'4'' N,
Longitude 094[deg]46'27'' W, west to Latitude 29[deg]19'51'' N,
Longitude 094[deg]46'45'' W, and north to Latitude 29[deg]20'19'' N,
Longitude 094[deg]46'36'' W. Vessel transits at greater than minimum
safe speed in this area would be prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston (COTP) or a
designated representative.
    Vessels can contact the COTP through Vessel Traffic Service
Houston/Galveston on VHF Channel 5A, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic
impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary. The basis of this finding is that the
proposed regulated navigation area covers a small area and vessels are
allowed to travel through it at a minimum safe speed so as not to delay
vessel traffic in and around the Port of Galveston.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: The
extent of the proposed regulated navigation area is limited in size and
would not create undue delay to vessel traffic in and around the Port
of Galveston.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant junior grade Margaret
Brown at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule would not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves establishing a regulated
navigation area in Galveston Channel. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add new Sec.  165.827 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.827  Regulated Navigation Area; Galveston Channel, Texas.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area:
All waters of the Galveston Channel within the area from Latitude
29[deg]20'19'' N, Longitude 094[deg]46'36'' W, east to Latitude
29[deg]20'06'' N, Longitude 094[deg]46'15'' W, south to Latitude
29[deg]19'47'' N, Longitude 094[deg]46'27'' W, west to Latitude
29[deg]19'51'' N, Longitude 094[deg]46'45'' W, and north to Latitude
29[deg]20'19'' N, Longitude 094[deg]46'36'' W.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Vessels navigating this area must do so at a
minimum safe speed so as to not cause any wake.
    (2) Vessels may proceed at greater than a minimum safe speed with
permission of the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or a designated
representative.
    (3) To request permission as required by these regulations, contact
the Sector Houston-Galveston Command Center by telephone at (713) 671-
5113.

    Dated: March 24, 2010.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-8372 Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


39882 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Proposed Rules   The in mine testing of the preproduction prototype PDMs at mines in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alabama, and Utah is completed;   NIOSH and MSHA commit $ 150,000 each for further testing contingent upon completion and positive assessment of the in mine testing; and   Information is obtained to assist in controlling and monitoring respirable coal mine dust and preventing Black Lung disease. For all the reasons stated herein, the comment period on the proposed rule is hereby extended until further notice is published in the Federal Register. A separate notice reopening the rulemaking record for the proposed rule `` Determination of Concentration of Respirable Coal Mine Dust,'' ( 68 FR 10940, 68 FR 32005) will be published in the Federal Register shortly.

Dated: June 30, 2003. John R. Caylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. [ FR Doc. 03   16979 Filed 7   1   03; 11: 28 am]

BILLING CODE 4510   43   M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 19 and 27 [ FRL   7522   4]

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend the final Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, as mandated by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, to adjust EPA's civil monetary penalties (`` CMPs'') for inflation on a periodic basis. The Agency is required to review its penalties at least once every four years and to adjust them as necessary for inflation according to a formula specified in the statute. A complete version of Table 1 from the proposed regulatory text, which lists all of the EPA's civil monetary penalty authorities, appears near the end of this document. DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before August 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the Docket Office, Enforcement & Compliance Docket and Information Center ( 2201AT), Docket Number EC   2001   008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460 ( in triplicate, if possible). Please use a font size no smaller than 12. Written comments may be delivered in person to: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically to docket. oeca@ epa. gov or faxed to ( 202) 566   1511. Attach electronic comments as an ASCii ( text) file, and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Be sure to include the docket number, EC   2001   008 on your document. Public comments, if any, may be reviewed at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket Information Center, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460. Persons interested in reviewing this docket may do so by calling ( 202) 566   1512.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Abdalla, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Multimedia Enforcement Division, Mail Code 2248A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, ( 202) 564   2413.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Pursuant to section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U. S. C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U. S. C. 3701 note, (`` DCIA''), each federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the maximum civil monetary penalties that can be imposed pursuant to such agency's statutes. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of CMPs and to further the policy goals of the laws. The DCIA requires adjustments to be made at least once every four years following the initial adjustment. The EPA's initial adjustment to each CMP was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1996, at 61 FR 69360 and became effective on January 30, 1997. The proposed rule adjusts the amount for each type of CMP that EPA has jurisdiction to impose in accordance with these statutory requirements. It does so by revising the table contained in 40 CFR 19.4. The table identifies the statutes that provide EPA with CMP authority and sets out the inflationadjusted maximum penalty that EPA may impose pursuant to each statutory provision. The proposed rule also revises the effective date provisions of 40 CFR 19.2 to make the penalty amounts set forth in 40 CFR 19.4 apply to all applicable violations that occur after the effective date of the final rule. The DCIA requires that the adjustment reflect the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index between June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment and June of the calendar year in which the amount was last set or adjusted. The DCIA defines the Consumer Price Index as the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor (`` CPI   U''). As the initial adjustment was made and published on December 31, 1996, the inflation adjustment for the CMPs set forth in the proposed rule was calculated by comparing the CPI   U for June 1996 ( 156.7) with the CPI U for June 2002 ( 179.9), resulting in an inflation adjustment of 14.8 percent. In addition, the DCIA's rounding rules require that an increase be rounded to the nearest multiple of: $ 10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $ 100; $ 100 in the case of penalties greater than $ 100 but less than or equal to $ 1,000; $ 1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $ 1,000 but less than or equal to $ 10,000; $ 5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $ 10,000 but less than or equal to $ 100,000; $ 10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $ 100,000 but less than or equal to $ 200,000; and $ 25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $ 200,000. The amount of each CMP was multiplied by 14.8 percent ( the inflation adjustment) and the resulting increase amount was rounded up or down according to the rounding requirements of the statute. The table below shows the inflation adjusted CMPs and includes only the CMPs as of the effective date of the final rule. EPA intends to readjust these amounts in the year 2007 and every four years thereafter, assuming there are no further changes to the mandate imposed by the DCIA. On June 18, 2002, the EPA published a direct final rule and a parallel proposed rule in the Federal Register ( 67 FR 41343). The direct final rule would have amended the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, as mandated by the DCIA, to adjust EPA's civil monetary penalties for inflation. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by July 18, 2002, EPA would publish a timely notice of withdrawal on or before the August 19, 2002 effective date, and then address that comment in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal published at ( 67 FR 41363). EPA VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 46 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYP1. SGM 03JYP1 39883 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Proposed Rules subsequently received one adverse comment on the direct final rule from the Government Accounting Office (`` GAO''), which stated that EPA had misinterpreted the rounding formula provided in the DCIA. Accordingly, EPA withdrew the direct final rule on August 19, 2002 ( 67 FR 53743). The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress in the DCIA and these changes are not subject to the exercise of discretion by EPA. However the rounding requirement of the statute is subject to different interpretations. Some agencies rounded the increase based on the amount of the current penalty before adjustment, while other agencies have rounded the increase based on the amount of the increase resulting from the CPI percentage calculation. Still other agencies first added the CPI increase to the amount of the current penalty and then rounded the total based on the amount of the increased penalty. The penalties in EPA's direct final rule were rounded based on the amount of the increase resulting from the CPI percentage increase because this approach appears to achieve the intent of the DCIA by steadily tracking the CPI over time. However, the GAO's adverse comment asserts that a strict reading of the DCIA requires rounding the CPI increase based on the amount of the current penalty before adjustment. EPA proposes to adopt GAO's interpretation of the DCIA rounding rules and round the CPI increases based on the amount of the current penalty before adjustment. EPA intends to use this formula for calculating future adjustments to the CMPs and will not provide additional comment periods at the time future adjustments are made.

Administrative Requirements Although EPA is publishing this rule with proposal, we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no further adverse comment. This rule incorporates requirements specifically set forth in the DCIA requiring EPA to issue a regulation implementing inflation adjustments for all its civil penalty provisions. These technical changes, required by law, do not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework or in any way affect the terms under which civil penalties are assessed by EPA. In addition, EPA has made minor conforming changes to the regulations to reflect the effective date of the new penalties prescribed by Congress. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Statutory and Executive Order Review Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, ( 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). Burden means the total time, effort, financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as ( 1) a small business as defined in the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR part 121; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is required by the DCIA to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation. The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress and is not subject to the exercise of discretion by EPA. EPA's action implements this statutory mandate and does not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework. This rule does not affect mechanisms already in place, including statutory provisions and EPA policies, that address the special circumstances of small entities when assessing penalties in enforcement actions. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. Small entities may be affected by this rule only if the federal government finds them in violation and seeks monetary penalties. EPA's media penalty policies generally take into account an entity's `` ability to pay'' in determining the amount of a penalty. Additionally, the final amount of any civil penalty assessed against a violator remains VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 46 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYP1. SGM 03JYP1 39884 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Proposed Rules committed to the discretion of the Federal Judge or Administrative Law Judge hearing a particular case. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The proposed rule contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector because the rule implements mandate( s) specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects 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.'' The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' As the proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5   501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Because this action does not involve technical standards, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note).

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. Because this action does not involve technical standards, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note).

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 46 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYP1. SGM 03JYP1 39885 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Proposed Rules Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 19 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.

40 CFR Part 27 Administrative practice and procedure, Assessments, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

Dated: June 27, 2003. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. Revise part 19 to read as follows:

PART 19   ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR INFLATION Sec. 19.1 Applicability. 19.2 Effective Date. 19.3 [ Reserved]. 19.4 Penalty Adjustment and Table. Authority: Pub. L. 101   410, 28 U. S. C. 2461 note; Pub. L. 104   134, 31 U. S. C. 3701 note.

§ 19.1 Applicability.

This part applies to each statutory provision under the laws administered by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the maximum civil monetary penalty which may be assessed in either civil judicial or administrative proceedings.

§ 19.2 Effective Date.

The increased penalty amounts set forth in this rule apply to all violations under the applicable statutes and regulations which occur after July 3, 2003. [ The regulatory penalty provisions of this part effective on January 30, 1997 remain in effect for any violation of law occurring between January 30, 1997 and July 3, 2003.

§ 19.3 [ Reserved].

§ 19.4 Penalty Adjustment and Table.

The adjusted statutory penalty provisions and their maximum applicable amounts are set out in Table 1. The last column in the table provides the newly effective maximum penalty amounts.

TABLE 1 OF § 19.4.   CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS U. S. Code citation Civil monetary penalty description New maximum penalty amount in dollars 7 U. S. C. 1361.( a)( 1) .................................. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, & RODENTICIDE ACT CIVIL PENALTY   GENERAL   COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS, ETC.. $ 6,500 7 U. S. C. 1361.( a)( 2) .................................. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, & RODENTICIDE ACT CIVIL PENALTY   PRIVATE APPLICATORS   FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES OR VIOLATIONS. $ 650/$ 1,100 15 U. S. C. 2615( a) ..................................... TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT CIVIL PENALTY $ 32,500 15 U. S. C. 2647( a) ..................................... ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT CIVIL PENALTY. $ 6,500 31 U. S. C. 3802( a)( 1) ................................. PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT/ VIOLATION INVOLVING FALSE CLAIM. $ 6,500 31 U. S. C. 3802( a)( 2) ................................. PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT/ VIOLATION INVOLVING FALSE STATEMENT. $ 6,500 33 U. S. C. 1319( d) ..................................... CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY. $ 32,500 33 U. S. C. 1319( g)( 2)( A) ............................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PER VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM. $ 11,000/$ 32,500 33 U. S. C. 1319( g)( 2)( B) ............................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PER VIOLATION and MAXIMUM. $ 11,000/$ 157,500 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 6)( B)( I) ......................... CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ ADMIN PENALTY OF SEC 311( b)( 3)&( j) PER VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM $ 11,000/$ 32,500 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 6)( B)( ii) ........................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ ADMIN PENALTY OF SEC 311( b)( 3)&( j) PER VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM $ 11,000/$ 157,500 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( A) ............................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 311( b)( 3)   PER VIOLATION PER DAY OR PER BARREL OR UNIT. $ 32,500 or $ 1,100 per barrel or unit.

33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( B) ............................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 311( c)&( e)( 1)( B). $ 32,500 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( C) ............................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 311( j). $ 32,500 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 46 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYP1. SGM 03JYP1 39886 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 OF § 19.4.   CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS   Continued U. S. Code citation Civil monetary penalty description New maximum penalty amount in dollars 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( D) ............................ CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION/ MINIMUM CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 311( b)( 3)   PER VIOLATION OR PER BARREL/ UNIT. $ 120,000 or $ 3,300 per barrel or unit.

33 U. S. C. 1414b( d) ................................... MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH & SANCTUARIES ACT VIOL SEC 104b( d). $ 760 33 U. S. C. 1415( a) ..................................... MARINE PROTECTION RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT VIOLATIONS   FIRST & SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS. $ 60,000/$ 157,500 42 U. S. C. 300g   3( b) ................................. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 1414( b). $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 300g   3( c) ................................. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 1414( c). $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 300g   3( g)( 3)( A) ........................ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC 1414( g)( 3)( a). $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 300g   3( g)( 3)( B) ........................ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ MAXIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES PER SEC 1414( g)( 3)( B). $ 6,000/$ 30,000 42 U. S. C. 300g   3( g)( 3)( C) ........................ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ THRESHOLD REQUIRING CIVIL JUDICIAL ACTION PER SEC 1414( g)( 3)( C). $ 30,000 42 U. S. C. 300h   2( b)( 1) ............................. SDWA/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY/ VIOLATIONS OF REQS   UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL ( UIC). $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 300h   2( c)( 1) ............................. SDWA/ CIVIL ADMIN PENALTY/ VIOLATIONS OF UIC REQS   PER VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM. $ 11,000/$ 157,500 42 U. S. C. 300h   2( c)( 2) .............................. SDWA/ CIVIL ADMIN PENALTY/ VIOLATIONS OF UIC REQS   PER VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM. $ 6,500/$ 157,500 42 U. S. C. 300h   3( c)( 1) ............................. SDWA/ VIOLATION/ OPERATION OF NEW UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELL. $ 6,500 42 U. S. C. 300h   3( c)( 2) ............................. SDWA/ WILLFUL VIOLATION/ OPERATION OF NEW UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELL. $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 300i( b) ...................................... SDWA/ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT ORDER. $ 15,000 42 U. S. C. 300i   1( c) ................................... SDWA/ ATTEMPTING TO OR TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY. $ 100,000/$ 1,000,000 42 U. S. C. 300j( e)( 2) .................................. SDWA/ FAILURE TO COMPLY W/ ORDER ISSUED UNDER SEC. 1441( c)( 1). $ 2,750 42 U. S. C. 300j   4( c) ................................... SDWA/ REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH REQS. OF SEC. 1445( a) OR ( b). $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 300j   6( b)( 2) .............................. SDWA/ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ADMIN. ORDER ISSUED TO FEDERAL FACILITY. $ 30,000 42 U. S. C. 300j   23( d) ................................ SDWA/ VIOLATIONS/ SECTION 1463( b)   FIRST OFFENSE REPEAT OFFENSE. $ 6,500/$ 60,000 42 U. S. C. 4852d( b)( 5) ............................... RESIDENTIAL LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF 1992, SEC 1018   CIVIL PENALTY. $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 4910( a)( 2) ................................. NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972   CIVIL PENALTY ..... $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 6928( a)( 3) ................................. RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT/ VIOLATION SUBTITLE C ASSESSED PER ORDER. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 6928( c) ..................................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ CONTINUED NONCOMPLIANCE OF COMPLIANCE ORDER. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 6928( g) ..................................... RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT/ VIOLATION SUBTITLE C. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 6928( h)( 2) ................................. RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ NONCOMPLIANCE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDER. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 6934( e) ..................................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 3013 ORDER. $ 6,500 42 U. S. C. 6973( b) ..................................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ VIOLATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. $ 6,500 42 U. S. C. 6991e( a)( 3) ............................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ NONCOMPLIANCE WITH UST ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 6991e( d)( 1) ............................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ FAILURE TO NOTIFY OR FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATION. $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 6991e( d)( 2) ............................... RCRA/ VIOLATIONS OF SPECIFIED UST REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 14304( a)( 1) ............................... BATTERY ACT VIOLATIONS .......................................... $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 14304( g) ................................... BATTERY ACT/ VIOLATIONS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERS. $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 7413( b) ..................................... CLEAN AIR ACT/ VIOLATION/ OWNERS & OPERATORS OF STATIONARY AIR POLLUTION SOURCES   JUDICIAL PENALTIES. $ 32,500 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 46 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYP1. SGM 03JYP1 39887 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Proposed Rules 1 As adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 ( Pub. L. 101   410, 104 Stat. 890), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 ( Pub. L. 104   134, 110 Stat. 1321). [ The regulatory penalty provisions of this part effective on January 30, 1997 remain in effect for any violation of law occurring between January 30, 1997 and July 3, 2003. 2 As adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 ( Pub. L. 101   410, 104 Stat. 890), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 ( Pub. L. 104   134, 110 Stat. 1321). TABLE 1 OF § 19.4.   CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS   Continued U. S. Code citation Civil monetary penalty description New maximum penalty amount in dollars 42 U. S. C. 7413( d)( 1) ................................. CLEAN AIR ACT/ VIOLATION/ OWNERS & OPERATORS OF STATIONARY AIR POLLUTION SOURCES   ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES PER VIOLATION & MAX. $ 32,500/$ 245,000 42 U. S. C. 7413( d)( 3) ................................. CLEAN AIR ACT/ MINOR VIOLATIONS/ STATIONARY AIR POLLUTION SOURCES   FIELD CITATIONS. $ 6,500 42 U. S. C. 7524( a) ..................................... TAMPERING OR MANUFACTURE/ SALE OF DEFEAT DEVICES IN VIOLATION OF 7522( a)( 3)( A) OR ( a)( 3)( B)   BY PERSONS. $ 2,750 42 U. S. C. 7524( a) ..................................... VIOLATION OF 7522( a)( 3)( A) OR ( a)( 3)( B)   BY MANUFACTURERS OR DEALERS; ALL VIOLATIONS OF 7522( a)( 1), ( 2), ( 4), & ( 5) BY ANYONE. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 7524( c) ..................................... ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES AS SET IN 7524( a) & 7545( d) WITH A MAXIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY $ 245,000 42 U. S. C. 7545( d) ..................................... VIOLATIONS OF FUELS REGULATIONS ...................... $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 9604( e)( 5)( B) ............................ SUPERFUND AMEND. & REAUTHORIZATION ACT/ NONCOMPLIANCE W/ REQUEST FOR INFO OR ACCESS $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 9606( b)( 1) ................................. SUPERFUND/ WORK NOT PERFORMED W/ IMMINENT SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 9609( a)&( b) ............................... SUPERFUND/ ADMIN. PENALTY VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U. S. C. SECT. 9603, 9608, OR 9622. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 9609( b) ..................................... SUPERFUND/ ADMIN. PENALTY VIOLATIONS   SUBSEQUENT $ 92,500 42 U. S. C. 9609( c) ..................................... SUPERFUND/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY/ VIOLATIONS OF SECT. 9603, 9608, 9622. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 9609( c) ..................................... SUPERFUND/ CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY/ SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS OF SECT. 9603, 9608, 9622. $ 92,500 42 U. S. C. 11045( a)&( b)( 1), ( 2) & ( 3) ........ EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHTTO KNOW ACT CLASS I & II ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL PENALTIES. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 11045( b)( 2) & ( 3) ...................... EPCRA CLASS I & II ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL PENALTIES   SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS. $ 92,500 42 U. S. C. 11045( c)( 1) ............................... EPCRA CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 11022 OR 11023. $ 32,500 42 U. S. C. 11045( c)( 2) ............................... EPCRA CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 11021 OR 11043( b). $ 11,000 42 U. S. C. 11045( d)( 1) ............................... EPCRA   FRIVOLOUS TRADE SECRET CLAIMS   CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. $ 32,500 per barrel or unit.

PART 27   [ AMENDED]

2. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 31 U. S. C. 3801   3812; Pub. L. 101   410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U. S. C. 2461 note; Pub L. 104   134, 110 Stat. 1321, 31 U. S. C. 3701 note.

3. Section 27.3 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a)( 1)( iv) and ( b)( 1)( ii) to read as follows:

§ 27.3 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

( a) * * * ( 1) * * * ( iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $ 6,500 1 for each such claim. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 1) * * * ( ii) Contains, or is accompanied by, an express certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $ 6,500 2 for each such statement. * * * * * [ FR Doc. 03   16925 Filed 7   2   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 46 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYP1. SGM 03JYP1


Meeting Agenda

Date:	Wednesday July 30, 2008

Time:	2:00 to 3:30 PM (NOTE CHANGE)

Location:	EPA Large Conference Room

Required Attendance:

Nasser Assaf (Valent); Bruce Young and Gary Mihlan (Bayer)

Muhilan Pandian and Jeff Driver (Infoscientific)

David Miller, David Hrdy, Matt Crowly, Steve Nako (EPA)

Others are welcome, but this is not a CARES training session.  The
purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed changes to CARES to
accomplish a cumulative pyrethroid risk assessment.

Time	Topic	Presenter

2:00	Introduction	Nasser Assaf

2:05	Cumulative Modeling Tasks proposed by PWG in  CARES
Gary/Nasser/Bruce

2:15	Cumulative exposure/risk calculations (review and discussion)
Nasser Assaf

	Chem/Tox	Muhilan/All

	Diet PDP	Muhilan/Bruce

	REJV/Product use	Jeff/Muhilan/Steve Nako

	Moving average (residential, diet)	Muhilan/David Hrdy

	Contribution analysis (residential, cumulative)	Muhilan/David Miller

2:40	CARES modules update (individual routes and across routes)
Muhilan Pandian

3:00	Creating examples for QA’ing cumulative modules 	All (lead Bruce
Young)

3:20	Next Steps (10 min.)	All

3:30	Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69039-69041]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0472; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-040-AD;
Amendment 39-18018; AD 2014-23-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters (Type
Certificate Currently Held by AgustaWestland S.p.A.) (Agusta)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Agusta Model A109E, A109K2, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. This AD
requires repetitively performing a magnetic particle inspection of the
Gleason crown for a crack. This AD was prompted by a report of a crack
that was found on a Gleason crown, which if not detected, could cause
damage to or loss of the main rotor drive and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective December 26, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 26,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015
Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-
664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 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 European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 16, 2014, at 79 FR 41462, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Agusta Model A109E,
A109K2, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters with a main transmission, part
number (P/N) 109-0400-03-103, 109-0400-05-103, and 109-0400-03-109,
with a Gleason crown, P/N 109-0403-07-103, installed. The NPRM proposed
to require, for main transmissions with 2,400 or more hours time-in-
service (TIS), performing repetitive magnetic particle inspections of
the Gleason crown for a crack. If there is a crack, the NPRM proposed
replacing the Gleason crown assembly before further flight. The NPRM
also proposed to prohibit installing a Gleason crown, P/N 109-0403-07-
103, or a Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109-0401-27-101 or P/N 109-0401-
27-109, on any helicopter. The proposed requirements were intended to
detect a crack, which could cause damage to or loss of the main rotor
drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0118, dated June 3, 2013,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent

for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for Agusta Model A109K2, A109E, A119, and AW119MKII
helicopters. EASA advises that during an overhaul of an A119 main
transmission, P/N 109-0400-05-103, a crack on the Gleason crown, P/N
109-0403-07-103, was found. EASA further states that the crack
originated from the bottom of one of the 40 threaded holes in the
Gleason crown, and that this part-numbered Gleason crown is also
installed on Model A109 helicopters. EASA states that this condition,
if not corrected, could cause damage to or loss of the main rotor drive
and loss of control of the helicopter. To correct this unsafe
condition, EASA AD No. 2013-0118 requires repetitive magnetic particle
inspections of the Gleason crown and, if there is a crack, replacing
the Gleason crown with a different part-numbered Gleason crown. EASA AD
No. 2013-0118 also prohibits installing a Gleason crown, P/N 109-0403-
07-103, or a Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109-0401-27-101 or P/N 109-
0401-27-109, on any helicopter, as Gleason crown, P/N 109-0403-07-103,
is a component of these assemblies.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 41462,
July 16, 2014).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air
safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as
proposed, except for minor editorial changes. These changes are
consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (79 FR 41462,
July 16, 2014) and will not increase the economic burden on any
operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD requires compliance within 200 hours TIS for main
transmissions with 2,400 or more hours. The EASA AD requires different
compliance times, depending on the number of flight hours the
transmission has accumulated.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109EP-128 for Model
A109E helicopters, Agusta BT No. 109K-57 for Model A109K2 helicopters,
and Agusta BT No. 119-058 for Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters,
each Revision A and dated May 28, 2013. Each BT describes procedures
for performing a magnetic particle inspection on the Gleason crown, P/N
109-0403-07-103, for a crack. If there is a crack, each BT specifies
replacing the Gleason crown assembly with a Gleason crown assembly, P/N
109-0401-27-107.
    We also reviewed Agusta BT No. 109EP-126 for Model A109E
helicopters, Agusta BT No. 109K-56 for Model A109K2 helicopters, and
Agusta BT No. 119-053 for Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters, each
dated December 20, 2012. These BTs contain procedures for upgrading the
transmission system by replacing the Gleason crown assembly with a
Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109-0401-27-107.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 218 helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD. At an average
labor rate of $85 per hour, magnetic particle inspecting the Gleason
crown requires about 24 work-hours, for an estimated cost per
helicopter of $2,040, and a total cost of $444,720 for the U.S. fleet,
per inspection cycle.
    If required, replacing the Gleason crown assembly requires about 24
work-hours, and required parts will cost $29,000, for a cost per
helicopter of $31,040.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-23-02 Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters (Type Certificate Currently
Held By AgustaWestland S.p.A.) (Agusta): Amendment 39-18018; Docket
No. FAA-2014-0472; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-040-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta Model A109E, A109K2, A119, and AW119
MKII helicopters with a main transmission, part number (P/N) 109-
0400-03-103, 109-0400-05-103, or 109-0400-03-109, with a Gleason
crown, P/N 109-0403-07-103, installed, certificated in any category.

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a Gleason
crown. This condition could cause damage to or loss of the main
rotor drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 26, 2014.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) For main transmissions with 2,400 or more hours time-in-
service (TIS), within 200 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not
exceeding 1,600 hours TIS, magnetic particle inspect the Gleason
crown, P/N 109-0403-07-103, for a crack by following the procedures
in:
    (i) Annex 1 of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109EP-128,
Revision A, dated May 28, 2013, for Model A109E helicopters;
    (ii) Annex 1 of Agusta BT No. 109K-57, Revision A, dated May 28,
2013, for Model A109K2 helicopters; or
    (iii) Annex 1 of Agusta BT No. 119-058, Revision A, dated May
28, 2013, for Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters.
    (2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the
Gleason crown assembly with a Gleason Crown assembly, P/N 109-0401-
27-107. Replacing the Gleason crown assembly with P/N 109-0401-27-
107 is terminating action for the inspection requirements of this
AD.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a
Gleason crown, P/N 109-0403-07-103, or a Gleason crown assembly, P/N
109-0401-27-101 or P/N 109-0401-27-109, on any helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0118, dated June 3, 2013. You may view the
EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0472.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320: Main Rotor
Gearbox.

 (i) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico No. 109EP-128, Revision A,
dated May 28, 2013.
    (ii) AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico No. 109K-57, Revision A,
dated May 28, 2013.
    (iii) AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico No. 119-058, Revision A,
dated May 28, 2013.
    (3) For AgustaWestland service information identified in this
AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del
Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio
D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 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 Fort Worth, Texas, on October 30, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-26825 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9464-9465]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03489]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0258; FRL-9906-43-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Regarding the Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline Under the Tier 2
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements Regarding the Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline
under the Tier 2 Rule'' (EPA ICR No.1907.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0437)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a ``proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through April 30, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (78FR 72675) on December 3, 2013 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 21,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0258, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    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 profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geanetta Heard, Fuel Compliance
Center, 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> fax number:
202-566-1744 email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: With this ICR renewal, EPA is seeking permission to
continue recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for refiners and importers as they relate to gasoline
sulfur content of motor vehicles under Section 211(e) (1) of the Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR part 80, subpart H, and to provide a compliance
option whereby a refiner or importer may demonstrate compliance with
the gasoline sulfur control requirement via test results. These
provisions, which have been in effect since 2006, are designed to grant
compliance flexibility.
    Form Numbers:

5900-312 Gasoline Sulfur Facility Summary report
5900-313 Gasoline sulfur Corporate Pool Facility Identification Report
5900-314 Overhead for Facility Level Reports
5900-315 Gasoline Sulfur Corporate Pool Averaging Report
5900-316 Overhead for Company Level Reports
5900-317 Gasoline Sulfur Allotment Banking Report
5900-318 Gasoline Sulfur Allotment Transfer/Conversion Report
5900-319 Gasoline Sulfur Credit Banking Allotment Generation Report
5900-320 Gasoline Sulfur Report for Batches Containing Previously
Certified Gasoline
5900-321 Gasoline Sulfur and Benzene Batch Report
5900-322 Gasoline Sulfur Credit Transfer/Conversion Report

    Respondents/affected entities: Gasoline Refiners, Importers,
Gasoline Terminals, Pipelines, Truckers and Users of Research and
Development Gasoline.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,380 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually, Monthly and on occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 38,573 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,158,252 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The total number of responses for this ICR
increased by 60 compared to the previously approved ICR in the renewal.
The responses increased from 37,605 to 37,665 responses. Also, the
burden increased by 75 from 38,498 in the previously approved ICR to
38,573 in this renewal. These increases are due to the inclusion of the
Geographic Phase-in Areas (GPA) refineries that were left out of the
previous ICR renewal. The cost of this ICR compared with the currently
approved OMB collection increased by $584,298 due to better numbers
used to calculate burden.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-03489 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P