Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49809 

TABLE 3—RELATED SERVICE BULLETINS—Continued 

Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6006 ....................................................................................................... 3 March 24, 1989. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use the service information 

contained in Table 4 of this AD to do the 

actions required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

TABLE 4—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–53–6005 ..................................................................................... 04 July 18, 2007. 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–53–2024 ..................................................................................... 05 October 13, 2006. 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–53–2025 ..................................................................................... 06 August 3, 2006. 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6006 ....................................................................................................... 3 March 24, 1989. 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6006, 

Revision 3, dated March 24, 1989, contains 

the following effective pages: 

Page Nos. 

Revision level 

shown on 

page 

Date shown on page 

1, 29, 47, 48 ................................................................................................................................................ 3 March 24, 1989. 

2–28, 30–46, 49–52 ..................................................................................................................................... 2 August 11, 1988. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW 

(Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 

93 44 51; e-mail: account.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet http:// 

www.airbus.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

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 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_

locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 16, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–23094 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Parts 806 and 808 

Review and Approval of Projects 

AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

amendments to the project review 

regulations of the Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission (Commission) 

including provisions restricting the use 

of docket reopening petitions to avoid 

abuses of process; amending the 

‘‘Approval by Rule’’ (ABR) process to 

allow for project sponsors to utilize 

approved water sources at approved 

drilling pad sites without the need for 

modification of the ABR; clarifying that 

the public hearing requirement for 

rulemaking shall be applicable to the 

proposed rulemaking stage of that 

process; and further providing for the 

time period within which 

administrative appeals must be filed. 

These amendments were first proposed 

in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR) that appeared at 74 FR 31647 on 

July 2, 2009. 

DATES: These rules are effective on 

November 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission, 1721 N. Front Street, 

Harrisburg, PA 17102–2391. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, 

telephone: 717–238–0423, ext. 306; fax: 

717–238–2436; e-mail: rcairo@srbc.net. 

Also, for further information on the final 

rulemaking, visit the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.srbc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose of 

Amendments 

The Commission convened public 

hearings on August 4, 2009, in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and on August 

5, 2009, in Elmira, New York. A written 

comment period was held open until 

August 15, 2009. Comments were 

received at both the hearings and during 

the comment period. A summary of the 

comments and the Commission’s 

responses thereto follows. 

Comments by Section, Part 806 

Section 806.4 Projects Requiring 

Review and Approval 

Comment: The Commission’s 

proposal to require review and approval 

for any hydroelectric project regulated 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) and initiating a 

licensing or licensing amendment is 

defective and should not be adopted 

because: (1) As currently worded, the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
49810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed amendment to 18 CFR 806.4 

(a) would exceed the Commission’s 

project review powers under Section 

3.10 of the Susquehanna River Basin 

Compact (Compact); (2) The proposed 

amendment to 18 CFR 806.4 (a) would 

produce duplicative and redundant 

licensing proceedings for review of 

hydroelectric projects and run afoul of 

the intent of Congress under the Federal 

Power Act and paragraph (w) of the 

Federal Reservations to the Compact to 

retain sole, unimpeded licensing 

authority in FERC; and (3) the 

Commission already has sufficient 

powers under its existing regulations 

and its compact authority to review 

aspects of hydroelectric and nuclear 

projects that affect water resources, and 

there is no need to single out these 

facilities for review in the proposed 

amendment to 18 CFR 806.4 (a). Despite 

the Commission’s claim in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that it is 

merely codifying its current practice, 

the proposal represents a break with 

past Commission practice regarding 

both hydroelectric facility and nuclear 

power plant review without any 

explanation or justification for the 

change, and is therefore arbitrary and 

capricious. 

The NOPR seeks to infringe on the 

exclusive authority of FERC granted to 

it under the Federal Power Act and 

reserved by Congress when it consented 

to the Compact. Nothing in the Compact 

provides, or even suggests, that the 

United States and the other parties to 

the Compact intended to grant the 

Commission review and approval 

authority of licensing or license 

amendment proceedings before FERC. 

There is no need for the additional 

language proposed in the NOPR in that 

the Commission has ample authority to 

review and approve ‘‘projects’’ that are 

separately undertaken and that affect 

the water resources of the basin under 

its existing regulatory program. With 

regard to projects regulated by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 

the Compact, the Commission’s existing 

regulatory program and current 

practices are clear enough, wellestablished, and fully recognized by 

NRC, thus questioning the need for the 

suggested modification. 

The Commission appears to be 

proposing that before an application can 

even be submitted to FERC or the NRC, 

application and approval must first be 

obtained from the Commission, which 

directly and materially interferes with 

FERC and NRC’s procedures and 

processes. 

Response: The Commission exercises 

concurrent jurisdiction with FERC and 

the NRC and believes that its exercise of 

same is both appropriate and authorized 

under the Compact. Furthermore, it has 

no intention of exercising that authority 

in a manner that conflicts or interferes 

with that exercised by these two federal 

agencies. Nor was it the intention of the 

proposed change to require Commission 

approval prior to the submission of 

licensing applications to the federal 

agencies. Rather, the intention was to 

have the initiation of federal licensing 

likewise initiate project review by the 

Commission. As was the case in a recent 

hydroelectric facility licensing process, 

the Commission undertakes a single, 

coordinated review with all federal and 

state resource agencies that serves both 

regulatory schemes. 

However, it is apparent from the 

comments received and the 

Commission’s own reconsideration that 

the proposed changes, as drafted, do not 

provide the clarification originally 

sought. Therefore, the Commission 

believes it is appropriate to suspend 

final action on this element of the NOPR 

so that it can be re-drafted, particularly 

to ensure that it does not interfere with 

FERC and NRC procedures. (This is 

especially the case with respect to the 

comment that the proposal could be 

interpreted as requiring both review and 

approval prior to initiating licensing 

actions.) The Commission will move 

forward with publication of a new 

NOPR at such time as it completes 

development of a revised set of 

proposed changes for projects involved 

in licensing procedures. 

Licensing and licensing amendment 

actions are projects that often have 

significant effects upon the water 

resources of the basin and the SRBC 

Comprehensive Plan. Federal 

Reservations, Section 2, paragraph w of 

the Compact, while preserving the 

authority of federal licensing 

authorities, also makes clear that use of 

the waters of the basin shall be subject 

to approval in accordance with the 

terms of the Compact. 

Both the Compact and the 

Commission’s current regulations 

require review and approval for, but not 

limited to: (1) Projects on or crossing the 

boundary between signatory states; (2) 

projects in one signatory state having a 

significant effect on the water resources 

within another signatory state; and (3) 

projects included in the Commission’s 

Comprehensive Plan or which would 

have a significant effect upon the plan. 

All hydroelectric and nuclear facilities 

in the basin meet one or more of these 

requirements. The Commission will 

therefore continue, as appropriate and 

as it has done in the past, to exercise 

concurrent authority with federal 

licensing authorities to review and 

approve such projects. 

Comment: The deletion of the existing 

§ 806.4(a)(8) language, which requires 

Commission review and approval of any 

natural gas well development project 

targeting the Marcellus or Utica shale 

formations and involving a withdrawal, 

diversion or consumptive use of water, 

regardless of quantity, was alarming. 

The Commission’s acknowledgement 

that the deletion of § 806.4(a)(8) was a 

drafting error, the public recognition of 

the error it posted on its Web site upon 

discovery of the error, and its 

willingness to correct the error at the 

final rulemaking stage is appreciated. 

Response: The Commission regrets 

the inadvertent proposed deletion of the 

provision and any confusion resulting 

from the error. Given that the 

Commission is not moving forward with 

any revisions to § 806.4(a)(8) as a part of 

this final rulemaking action, the error is 

of no effect and the provision in 

question remains effective. At such time 

as the Commission moves forward with 

revisions to § 806.4 as part of a new 

NOPR, it will be certain not to repeat 

the error. 

Section 806.22 Standards for 

Consumptive Use of Water 

Comment: Deletion of the contiguous 

landowner notification requirement in 

exchange for a display ad newspaper 

notice would leave such landowners 

without direct or effective notice, nor 

any guarantee that newspaper 

notification would provide adequate 

time for meaningful participation in the 

Approval by Rule (ABR) process. Any 

participation in the process would be 

markedly diminished, even though they 

remain the citizens most immediately 

affected. Moreover, some contiguous 

landowners do not reside on the 

affected land and thus may not be 

reached by the general newspaper 

notice. And as more newspapers fold as 

a result of declining readership and 

advertisement revenue, such notice will 

become increasingly inadequate. 

Do not eliminate the requirement that 

project sponsors notify contiguous 

landowners as part of the ABR process; 

it is only fair that notice be given to the 

persons who are directly affected by 

such projects, and adjacent landowners 

are well placed to inform the 

Commission about potential adverse 

impacts of the approval. 

Contiguous landowners need to have 

notice concerning water withdrawals 

since the presence of streams, pond or 

wetlands, and groundwater, contributes 

significantly to the value of the 

property. They should be entitled to 

notice and allowed a sufficient amount 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49811 

of time to comment on the impact of 

proposed withdrawals. 

If the Commission wants to enhance 

public transparency, it should make 

information concerning applications 

submitted to it available on the 

Commission’s Web site. In addition to 

providing information on the name of 

applicants, amount of water requested, 

location of withdrawals, date, and 

details of final action taken by the 

Commission, it should also plot 

withdrawals on a map display so that it 

is easy to see how much water is being 

withdrawn in a given area. 

Response: The Commission 

acknowledges the concerns raised in the 

comments, but notes that there is some 

confusion about the scope of the ABR 

process. First, the process does not 

involve approvals for withdrawals from 

surface or groundwater sources. A 

number of the comments received spoke 

to the legitimate right of contiguous 

landowners to receive notice of 

proposed withdrawals because of the 

potential impact of their use and 

enjoyment and potentially diminished 

value to their land. Withdrawals are 

regulated separately by the Commission, 

they require separate docket approval, 

and contiguous landowner notification 

is required in advance of any 

Commission action. The proposed 

revisions do not modify those 

notification provisions in any way. 

The ABR process involves an 

administrative approval for 

consumptive use at the natural gas well 

drilling pad site and enables the 

Commission to track all sources of water 

transported to the site, the quantities 

used in development of the well, and 

the fate of flowback and produced 

fluids. These data are important to 

assess the cumulative impact of this 

industry’s activity on the water 

resources of the basin. A number of the 

comments received, however, spoke to 

the appropriateness of landowner 

notification if well drilling and 

hydrofracing activity was occurring 

adjacent to their property. The ABR 

process does not involve approval to 

drill or hydrofrac; it is limited to 

regulating the consumptive use of water 

involved in either of those activities. 

Approval to drill (and to undertake the 

related hydrofracture development 

activity) is a separate governmental 

action undertaken by the Commission’s 

member states in the form of gas well 

permitting. 

The impetus behind the 

Commission’s proposal to modify 

contiguous landowner notice provisions 

in the ABR process stem from the fact 

that they have been problematic, 

administratively burdensome, and often 

lead to confusion at the landowner 

level. And while those shortcomings are 

pronounced with the ABR process, 

given the recent level of natural gas 

development activity, the Commission 

acknowledges that a number of those 

shortcomings are likewise present with 

its contiguous landowner notification 

requirements for docket applications as 

well. Therefore, after review and 

consideration of the comments received, 

as well as its own reconsideration of the 

appropriate scope of amendments to its 

existing notification procedures, the 

Commission believes it is appropriate to 

suspend action on this element of the 

NOPR as part of this final rulemaking 

action. Accordingly, it will move 

forward with publication of a new 

NOPR at such time as it completes 

development of a revised set of 

proposed changes to its general 

application notification requirements. 

With respect to public transparency, 

please note that the Commission 

continues to increase the amount of 

information contained on its Web site, 

www.srbc.net, for the benefit of the 

public. Further improvements are 

underway and are anticipated to be 

completed by the end of 2009 that will 

afford greater access to approvals, 

requests for approval, lists of approved 

water sources by project sponsor, 

location information about approved 

withdrawal and consumptive use sites, 

and mapping features to display 

information to better inform the public. 

Comment: The flexible use of 

approved water withdrawal sources by 

gas well developers at various drill pad 

sites without modification of their pad 

site ABR under proposed regulation 

§ 806.22 (f) (11 & 12) will mean that 

such withdrawals, and the ABR 

approved well pad sites they serve, will 

receive less regulatory scrutiny. 

Response: All such withdrawals will 

have already been fully reviewed and 

approved by the Commission prior to 

any use and will have met all public 

notice requirements at the time of their 

initial approval. This means that the 

impacts of withdrawals will have been 

fully evaluated and appropriate 

conditions such as passby requirements 

included. All users of these approved 

sources will be subject to the same 

limitations and conditions contained in 

the approved docket. 

In approving a withdrawal, the 

Commission exercises continuing 

regulatory oversight and can, at any 

time, reopen the docket approval and 

add new conditions or make further 

orders to meet any changed conditions 

and otherwise protect the public welfare 

and the environment. In addition, the 

main purpose of the proposed change is 

to simplify administrative procedures 

without compromising regulatory 

oversight. 

Again, as noted above, the ABR 

process involves an administrative 

approval for consumptive use at the 

natural gas well drilling pad site and 

enables the Commission to track all 

sources of water transported to the site, 

the quantities used in development of 

the well, and the fate of flowback and 

produced fluids. The substantive 

evaluation of withdrawals and the 

conditions under which they may be 

undertaken without impact to the 

environment or other users occurs 

under the Commission’s withdrawal 

regulations, and not the ABR process for 

which changes are proposed under this 

NOPR. 

Comment: The proposed changes to 

§ 806.22(f)(11) and (f)(12) would 

eliminate core safeguards for the waterrelated values that the Commission is 

committed to protect by allowing 

project sponsors to shift water from one 

project to another without even 

registering the transfer with the 

Commission. 

Response: This is a misreading of the 

NOPR and implies that project sponsors 

will be shifting water sources from one 

drilling pad site to another without 

oversight by the Commission. To the 

contrary, what the Commission is 

proposing is a system whereby each 

project sponsor engaged in natural gas 

development will have an approved list 

of water sources for which it has 

received docket approvals, with 

accompanying conditions to properly 

limit and monitor its withdrawals from 

each of those sources. The sources are 

added to the list at the time of docket 

approval, which effectively registers 

them for use at the project sponsor’s 

approved drilling pad sites. The 

Commission sees no need to require a 

separate registration action by the 

project sponsor when it can be done 

administratively at the time of docket 

approval. All other sources that the 

project sponsor may use at its approved 

drilling pad sites must first be registered 

or otherwise approved by the 

Commission. 

Comment: The proposed changes to 

§ 806.22(f)(12) would permit project 

sponsors to share and trade water 

sources without obtaining new or 

modified ABRs, and without certifying 

to the Commission their intention to 

comply with all terms and conditions of 

each other’s ABRs, and would authorize 

new sources of water without modifying 

the existing ABRs. 

Response: The terms and conditions 

incorporated into every water source 

approval, and every ABR issued by the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
49812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission, must be adhered to by 

project sponsors. The purposes of the 

proposed modifications are to facilitate 

efficient water use and water sharing by 

the natural gas industry, and to 

streamline administrative processes so 

that the Commission’s resources are 

better focused on substantive review 

and management of water resources, not 

inefficient bureaucracy. Issuing a single 

approval for a given water source and 

allowing its use at any of the project 

sponsor’s approved drilling pad sites, 

with appropriate conditions and 

monitoring requirements, is far 

preferable than requiring the project 

sponsor, and the Commission, to modify 

each and every ABR issued to the 

project sponsor, which could number in 

the hundreds over time. From a water 

resources management standpoint, the 

issue is whether the source is 

approvable for use without adverse 

effect, regardless of whether the project 

sponsor intends to utilize the source at 

one site, or multiple sites. Allowing 

water sharing limits the number of 

withdrawals across the basin and limits 

tanker truck traffic by allowing project 

sponsors to use the closest approved 

water source site, even if the withdrawal 

approval was first issued to another 

operator. Adherence to all docket 

conditions, and ABR recordkeeping and 

reporting conditions, will continued to 

be required of all project sponsors, 

resulting in a full daily accounting of all 

water withdrawn across the basin (by 

source, by date, by project sponsor), 

where it was delivered to, and 

quantities used on site. 

Comment: The new proposed 

subsections § 806.22(f)(11) and (f)(12)(ii) 

contain language requiring the project 

sponsor to obtain all necessary 

approvals required for the project from 

the state agency. However, such 

reference to the need for state agency 

approval is absent from new proposed 

§ 806.22(f)(12)(i). For the regulation to 

be internally consistent and for member 

state agency coordination purposes, a 

sentence should be added at the end of 

§ 806.22(f)(12)(i) that is similar to the 

one contained in § 806.22(f)(12)(ii), 

indicating that registrations ‘‘shall be 

subject to any approval or authorization 

required by the member State to utilize 

such source(s).’’ The proposed language 

would put the project sponsor on notice 

that it would also need state-level 

authorization to use such source at the 

time it is registered with the 

Commission and before its use for 

natural gas well development. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

with the commenter and the final 

rulemaking incorporates the proffered 

language. 

Section 806.32 Reopening/ 

Modification 

Comment: This procedural change 

will allow interested parties’ to fully 

participate in Commission processes, 

while avoiding unnecessary or 

duplicative proceedings. 

Response: The Commission agrees. 

Comment: Due process requires that 

the Commission narrowly construe its 

proposal to prevent persons whose 

administrative appeals are denied from 

petitioning for reopening of the 

approval seeking the same or similar 

relief absent new facts not known or 

readily discernable at the time of the 

appeal. Concern is raised about the use 

of the term ‘‘similar’’ being applied in 

such a way as to frustrate legitimate new 

claims, and the term ‘‘functionally 

equivalent’’ is recommended to be 

inserted in its place. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

and the final rulemaking incorporates 

the proffered language. 

Comment: We oppose the proposed 

restrictions to petitioning and reopening 

a docket. 

Response: The Commission believes 

that any interested party should have 

the right to petition for a reopening of 

a project approval, but believes that 

parties attempting to use this provision 

to obtain administrative review of 

matters for which administrative 

appeals were denied constitutes an 

abuse of process and should be 

restricted. 

Comments by Section, Part 808 

Section 808.1 Public Hearings 

Comment: We agree that the 

Commission should hold at least one 

public hearing within a reasonable 

period after rules revisions are initially 

proposed. The rule leaves open the 

option of convening additional hearings 

if, for example, the Commission 

recommends substantial changes in 

response to comments on the initial 

proposed rulemaking. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

with the interpretation of the 

commenter. As structured, the rule 

would require the Commission to 

convene at least one additional hearing 

in the event changes to an NOPR are 

substantial and result in re-publication. 

Section 808.2 Administrative Appeals 

Comment: The proposed constructive 

notice rule allowing the appeal period 

for persons other than project sponsors 

to run 30 days from the date of 

publication of the action in the Federal 

Register is respectful of due process 

rights and is commendable. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that this modification advances the due 

process rights of interested parties and 

has retained it in this final rulemaking 

action. 

Comment: This procedural change 

will maximize interested parties’ ability 

to fully participate in Commission 

processes. 

Response: The Commission agrees. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Parts 806 and 

808 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Water resources. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, the Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission amends 18 CFR Parts 

806 and 808 as follows: 

PART 806—REVIEW AND APPROVAL 

OF PROJECTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 806 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 3.4, 3.5(5), 3.8, 3.10 and 

15.2, Public Law 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq. 

Subpart C—Standards for Review and 

Approval 

■ 2. In § 806.22, revise paragraph (f)(11) 

and add paragraph (f)(12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 806.22 Standards for consumptive use of 

water. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(11) A project sponsor issued an 

approval by rule pursuant to paragraph 

(f)(9) of this section may utilize any 

water source approved for use by the 

project sponsor for natural gas well 

development pursuant to § 806.4 or this 

section, at the applicable drilling pad 

site subject to any approval or 

authorization required by the member 

state to utilize such source(s). 

(12) The following additional sources 

of water may be utilized by a project 

sponsor in conjunction with an 

approval by rule issued pursuant to 

paragraph (f)(9) of this section: 

(i) Water withdrawals or diversions 

approved by the Commission pursuant 

to § 806.4(a) and issued to persons other 

than the project sponsor, provided any 

such source is approved for use in 

natural gas well development, the 

project sponsor has an agreement for its 

use, and at least 10 days prior to use, the 

project sponsor registers such source 

with the Commission on a form and in 

a manner as prescribed by the 

Commission, and provides a copy of 

same to the appropriate agency of the 

member state. Any approval issued 

hereunder shall be further subject to any 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49813 

approval or authorization required by 

the member state to utilize such 

source(s). 

(ii) Sources of water other than those 

subject to paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this 

section, including, but not limited to, 

public water supply, wastewater 

discharge or other reclaimed waters, 

provided such sources are first 

approved by the Executive Director 

pursuant to this section. Any request to 

utilize such source(s) shall be submitted 

on a form and in a manner as prescribed 

by the Commission, and shall be subject 

to review pursuant to the standards set 

forth in subpart C of this part. Any 

approval issued hereunder shall be 

further subject to any approval or 

authorization required by the member 

state to utilize such source(s). The 

notice requirements related to agencies 

of member states, municipalities and 

counties contained in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section, and the notice 

requirements contained in paragraph 

(f)(3) of this section, shall likewise be 

applicable to any request submitted 

hereunder. 

Subpart D—Terms and Conditions of 

Approval 

■ 3. In § 806.32, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 806.32 Reopening/modification. 

(a) Once a project is approved, the 

Commission, upon its own motion, or 

upon petition of the project sponsor or 

any interested party, may at any time 

reopen any project approval and make 

additional orders or otherwise modify or 

impose such additional conditions that 

may be necessary to mitigate or avoid 

adverse impacts or to otherwise protect 

the public health, safety, and welfare or 

water resources. Whenever a petition for 

reopening is filed by an interested party, 

the burden shall be upon that interested 

party to show, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that a significant adverse 

impact or a threat to the public health, 

safety and welfare or water resources 

exists that warrants reopening of the 

docket. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

any petition filed by a party who 

previously sought the same or 

functionally equivalent relief identified 

in the petition pursuant to the 

administrative appeals process under 

§ 808.2 will not be eligible for 

consideration by the Commission absent 

new facts not known or readily 

discernable at the time of consideration 

of the petitioner’s previous request for 

administrative appeal filed pursuant to 

§ 808.2. 

* * * * * 

PART 808—HEARINGS AND 

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

■ 4. The authority citation for Part 808 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 3.4, 3.5(5), 3.8, 3.10 and 

15.2, Public Law 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq. 

Subpart A—Conduct of Hearings 

■ 5. In § 808.1, revise paragraphs (a)(2) 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 808.1 Public hearings. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Proposed rulemaking. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notice of public hearing. At least 

20 days before any public hearing 

required by the compact, notices stating 

the date, time, place and purpose of the 

hearing including issues of interest to 

the Commission shall be published at 

least once in a newspaper of general 

circulation in the area affected. 

Occasions when public hearings are 

required by the compact include, but are 

not limited to, amendments to the 

comprehensive plan, drought 

emergency declarations, and review and 

approval of diversions. In all other 

cases, at least 10 days prior to the 

hearing, notice shall be posted at the 

office of the Commission (or on the 

Commission Web site), mailed by first 

class mail to the parties who, to the 

Commission’s knowledge, will 

participate in the hearing, and mailed 

by first class mail to persons, 

organizations and news media who have 

made requests to the Commission for 

notices of hearings or of a particular 

hearing. With regard to rulemaking, the 

Commission shall convene at least one 

public hearing on any proposed 

rulemaking it approves for public 

review and comment. For any such 

hearing(s), notices need only be 

forwarded to the directors of the New 

York Register, the Pennsylvania 

bulletin, the Maryland Register and the 

Federal Register, and it is sufficient that 

this notice appear only in the Federal 

Register at least 20 days prior to the 

hearing and in each individual state 

publication at least 10 days prior to any 

hearing scheduled in that state. 

■ 6. In § 808.2, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 808.2 Administrative appeals. 

(a) A project sponsor or other person 

aggrieved by any action or decision of 

the Commission or Executive Director 

may file a written appeal requesting a 

hearing. Except with respect to project 

approvals or denials, such appeal shall 

be filed with the Commission within 30 

days of the action or decision. In the 

case of a project approval or denial, 

such appeal shall be filed by a project 

sponsor within 30 days of receipt of 

actual notice, and by all others within 

30 days of publication of notice of the 

action taken on the project in the 

Federal Register. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 16, 2009. 

Thomas W. Beauduy, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–23281 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0854] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Special Anchorage Areas; Henderson 

Harbor, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Coast 

Guard removes a note which states from 

whom one must obtain permission to 

moor or anchor in the special anchorage 

areas of Henderson Harbor, NY. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0854 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0854 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the 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, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Lieutenant Michael C. Petta, 

Ninth District Legal Office, Coast Guard, 

telephone 216–902–6010, e-mail 

michael.c.petta@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on obtaining permission to 

moor or anchor in the special anchorage 

areas of Henderson Harbor, NY, call the 

Town Board, telephone 315–938–5542. 

If you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES