12434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

FIGURE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (g) OF THIS AD: APU FUEL VALVE POSITION INDICATION OPERATIONAL CHECK

AWL No. Task Interval Applicability Description 

28–AWL–APU ALI .... 10 DAYS .. ALL ........................ APU Fuel Valve Position Indication Operational Check 

Concern: The MOV actuator design can result in airplanes operating with a failed 

MOV actuator that is not reported. A latently failed MOV actuator could prevent 

fuel shutoff to the APU. In the event of certain APU fires, the potential exists for 

an APU fire to be uncontrollable. 

Perform the operational check of the APU Fuel Valve position indication (unless 

checked by the flight crew in a manner approved by the principal operations inspector). 

A. Operational check of the APU Fuel Valve position indication 

1. If the APU is running, unload and shut down the APU using standard practices. 

2. Make sure the APU FIRE switch on the Aft Aisle Stand is in the NORMAL (IN) 

position. 

3. Make sure there is at least 700 lbs (300 kgs) of fuel in the Left Main Tank. 

4. Move APU Selector switch on the Overhead Panel to the ON position and wait 

10 seconds. 

5. Move APU Selector switch on the Overhead Panel to the OFF position. 

6. Verify the APU FAULT light on the Overhead Panel illuminates and then goes 

off. 

7. If the test fails (light fails to illuminate), before further flight requiring APU availability, repair faults as required (refer to Boeing AMM 28–25–11). 

NOTE: Dispatch may be permitted per MMEL 28–25–02 if APU is not required for 

flight. 

(h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals 

After accomplishment of the maintenance 

or inspection program revision required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative 

actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be 

used unless the actions or intervals are 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of 

this AD. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO) FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: (425) 917–6509; fax: (425) 917–6590; 

email: rebel.nichols@faa.gov. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

21, 2014. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04898 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 32 

[Docket No.: OJP (BJA) 1646] 

RIN 1121–AA80 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) of the U.S. Department of Justice 

proposes this rule to amend the 

regulation that implements the Public 

Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act and 

associated statutes. Generally speaking, 

these laws provide financial support to 

certain public safety officers, or their 

survivors and families, when such 

officers die, or become permanently and 

totally disabled, as a result of line-ofduty injuries, or when they die of heart 

attacks or strokes sustained within 

statutorily-specified timeframes of 

engaging or participating in certain lineof-duty activity. The proposed rule 

would amend the implementing 

regulation in order to change the 

definition of ‘‘Spouse.’’ 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before April 4, 

2014. Comments received by mail will 

be considered timely if they are 

postmarked on or before that date. The 

electronic Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) will accept comments 

until Midnight Eastern Time at the end 

of that day. 

ADDRESSES: Please address all 

comments regarding this rule by U.S. 

mail, to: Hope Janke, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice 

Programs, 810 7th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20531; or by 

telefacsimile to (202) 354–4135. To 

ensure proper handling, please 

reference OJP Docket No. 1646 on your 

correspondence. Comments may also be 

sent electronically through http://

regulations.gov using the electronic 

comment form provided on that site. An 

electronic copy of this document is also 

available at the http://regulations.gov 

Web site. OJP will accept attachments to 

electronic comments in Microsoft Word, 

WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats 

only. The public’s opportunity to 

comment through http://regulations.gov 

terminates at midnight Eastern Time on 

the day that the comment period closes. 

All comments received via U.S. mail, or 

an express mail carrier, must be 

postmarked on or before the day that the 

comment period closes. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hope Janke, BJA, OJP, at (202) 514– 

6278, or toll-free at 1 (888) 744–6513. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 12435 

I. Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at http://

www.regulations.gov. Information made 

available for public inspection includes 

personal identifying information (such 

as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter. 

If you wish to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not wish it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

that you do not want posted online in 

the first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want the 

agency to redact. Personal identifying 

information identified and located as set 

forth above will be placed in the 

agency’s public docket file, but not 

posted online. 

If you wish to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not wish it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, the agency may choose not to 

post that comment (or to only partially 

post that comment) on http://

www.regulations.gov. Confidential 

business information identified and 

located as set forth above will not be 

placed in the public docket file, nor will 

it be posted online. 

If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph. 

II. Background 

The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

(PSOB) Program (established pursuant 

to the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

Act of 1976 proper and certain 

associated statutes, enacted in 2001) is 

administered by the Office of Justice 

Programs of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. The PSOB Program provides a 

one-time financial payment to the 

statutorily-eligible survivors (including 

‘‘spouse[s]’’) of public safety officers 

who die as the direct and proximate 

result of (actual or presumed) traumatic 

personal injuries sustained in the line of 

duty, as well as educational assistance 

for their ‘‘spouse[s]’’ and certain of their 

children. Alternatively, the PSOB 

Program provides a one-time financial 

payment to public safety officers 

themselves who are permanently and 

totally disabled as the direct and 

proximate result of personal injuries 

sustained in the line of duty, as well as 

educational assistance for their 

‘‘spouse[s]’’ and certain of their 

children. 

Following the recent Supreme Court 

decision in United States v. Windsor, 

570 U.S. ___(2013), OJP is proposing 

this rule to amend the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘spouse’’ under the 

program, at 28 CFR 32.3. The proposed 

rule would recognize, as a matter of 

federal law, a person who lawfully 

enters into a marriage in one 

jurisdiction as a ‘‘spouse’’ for purposes 

of the program, even when living in 

another jurisdiction, and without regard 

to what the law of that other jurisdiction 

may provide. Consonant with prior 

program regulations, however, an 

exception to this general rule would 

apply where there is credible evidence 

that more than one person may be the 

public safety officer’s spouse. In such 

cases, the PSOB Program would look to 

the jurisdiction with the most 

significant interest in the marital status 

of the officer. 

As provided in 42 U.S.C. 3796c–2, 

any final rule promulgated pursuant to 

the proposed rule would ‘‘apply to any 

matter pending on, or filed or accruing 

after, the effective date’’ of that final 

rule. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule has been drafted 

and reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ section 1(b), 

Principles of Regulation, and in 

accordance with Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ section 1(b), General 

Principles of Regulation. Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). The costs of implementing 

this proposed rule would be minimal, as 

it would impose no costs on state, local, 

or tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

The Office of Justice Programs has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under section 3(f) of the Executive 

Order, and accordingly this rule has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the federal 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The PSOB 

program statutes provide benefits to 

individuals and do not impose any 

special or unique requirements on 

States or localities. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order No. 

13132, it is determined that this 

proposed rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order 

No. 12988. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) 

of the Executive Order, nothing in this 

proposed rule or any previous rule (or 

in any administrative policy, directive, 

ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or 

writing) directly relating to the Program 

that is the subject of this rule is 

intended to create any legal or 

procedural rights enforceable against the 

United States, except as the same may 

be contained within part 32 of title 28 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: this proposed 

rule addresses federal agency 

procedures; furthermore, this proposed 

rule would make amendments to clarify 

existing regulations and agency practice 

concerning public safety officers’ death, 

disability, and education benefits and 

would do nothing to increase the 

financial burden on any small entities. 

Therefore, an analysis of the impact of 

this proposed rule on such entities is 

not required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This proposed rule would not result 

in the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or 

more in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The PSOB program is a 

federal benefits program that provides 

benefits directly to qualifying 

individuals. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Education, Emergency medical services, 

Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rescue squad. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of 

Title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ 

DEATH, DISABILITY, AND 

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 

BENEFITS CLAIMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

Part 32 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42 

U.S.C. 3782(a), 3787, 3788, 3791(a), 

3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c–1, 3796c–2; 

sec. 1601, title XI, Public Law 90–351, 82 

Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, Public Law 94– 

430, 90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Public Law 

107–37, 115 Stat. 219. 

■ 2. Section 32.3 is amended by revising 

the definition of ‘‘Spouse’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 32.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Spouse means someone with whom 

an individual entered into marriage 

lawfully under the law of the 

jurisdiction in which it was entered into 

and from whom the individual is not 

divorced, and includes a spouse living 

apart from the individual, other than 

pursuant to divorce, except that, 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, to determine whether an individual 

is a spouse of a public safety officer 

within the meaning of this definition 

when more than one individual is 

purported to be such a spouse, the 

PSOB Program will apply the law of the 

jurisdiction that it determines has the 

most significant interest in the marital 

status of the public safety officer: 

(1) On the date of the officer’s death, 

with respect to a claim under subpart B 

of this part or by virtue of such death; 

or 

(2) As of the injury date, with respect 

to a claim not under subpart B of this 

part or by virtue of the officer’s death. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 21, 2014. 

Karol V. Mason, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04647 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1999–0013; FRL–9907– 

49–Region 2] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan National 

Priorities List: Deletion of the Federal 

Creosote Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region II is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Federal 

Creosote Superfund Site located in 

Manville, New Jersey, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the 

State of New Jersey, through the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than long-term 

groundwater monitoring and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1999–0013, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: puvogel.rich@epa.gov: Rich 

Puvogel, Remedial Project Manager, 

seppi.pat@epa.gov: Pat Seppi, 

Community Involvement Coordinator 

• Fax: (212) 637–4429. 

• Mail: Rich Puvogel, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Emergency & 

Remedial Response Division, 290 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866. 

or 

Pat Seppi, Community Involvement 

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Public Affairs 

Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor, 

New York, NY 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Emergency & 

Remedial Response Division, 290 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1999– 

0013. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS