81 FR 8976 - Carriage of Conditionally Permitted Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in Bulk
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 35 (February 23, 2016)
Coast Guard
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 35 (February 23, 2016)
| Page Range | 8976-8978 | |
| FR Document | 2016-03674 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 8976-8978] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-03674] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2013-0915] RIN 1625-ZA31 Carriage of Conditionally Permitted Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in Bulk AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that it has withdrawn the October 30, 2013, proposed policy letter concerning the carriage of shale gas extraction waste water (SGEWW) in bulk via barge. The policy letter proposed a new standardized process and specified conditions under which a barge owner could request and be granted a Certificate of Inspection endorsement or letter allowing the barge to transport SGEWW in bulk. That proposed policy is withdrawn and no new policy is proposed at this time. Barge owners may [[Page 8977]] continue to request case-by-case approval to transport SGEWW under current regulations by providing recent detailed chemical composition, environmental analyses, and other information for each individual tank barge load. The Coast Guard will consider instituting a standardized process for transporting SGEWW in bulk after it has assessed whether current regulations are inadequate to handle requests for transport of SGEWW in bulk and environmental impacts that may be associated with SGEWW transport by barge. DATES: The proposed policy letter was withdrawn February 23, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, call or email Dr. Cynthia A. Znati, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Hazardous Materials Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1412, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Discussion This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). On October 30, 2013, the Coast Guard published a proposed policy letter and requested comments on a new standardized process including the specific carriage conditions for the transport of shale gas extraction waste water (SGEWW) in bulk via barge (78 FR 64905). The proposed policy would have set out a process for performing chemical analyses of each load of SGEWW, a radiation survey of each barge before any personnel entered the barge and before changing from SGEWW to another cargo, and tank venting to prevent accumulation of radon. It also would have described limits on radioactivity concentration and consignment activity (effectively, limits on emission of radiation) for SGEWW cargoes. We proposed the policy letter in response to the rapid development in recent years of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as ``fracking'') that produce large volumes of shale gas and oil in the northern Appalachian Mountains. This fracking produces large amounts of SGEWW, some of which may contain hazardous materials including radioactive isotopes. Transport of SGEWW by vessel falls under the Coast Guard's existing regulations for bulk liquid hazardous material and requires specific, case-by-case permission. We explain these regulations in more detail, below. In 2011 a tank barge owner asked the Coast Guard for permission to transport SGEWW by tank barge. Anticipating that this would be the first of many requests, the Coast Guard proposed a standardized national policy to replace the case-by-case process which might have led to delays in processing those requests. (We have not received significant interest from industry, however, which is one of the reasons we are withdrawing the proposed policy.) The notice announcing the policy letter provided a 30-day public comment period. We received 70,115 comments in response to the notice and proposed policy letter. These comments are generally described below, with our responses, in the section titled ``Comments Received.'' We are now withdrawing the proposed policy. This notice officially withdrawing the proposed policy letter is intended to resolve any questions about the status of the proposed policy letter or the existing regulatory process. No new policy is proposed at this time. The Coast Guard will continue to consider requests for permission to transport SGEWW in bulk under our existing regulatory authority described in the next section. We will use experience with individual approvals of SGEWW barge transport to inform any future rulemaking or guidance on this subject. Carriage of SGEWW Under Existing Regulations The Coast Guard regulates the carriage of bulk liquid hazardous material by listing, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), permitted cargoes and the safety requirements that vessel owners must meet in order to carry those cargoes; see, for example, the list at Table 1 in 46 CFR part 153. Unlisted cargoes may not be carried without specific permission from the Coast Guard. The regulations provide that vessel owners may request and receive the necessary permission by providing information about each cargo so that the Coast Guard can prescribe necessary safety measures; see, for example, the requirements in 46 CFR 153.900. SGEWW is an unlisted cargo. In order to carry SGEWW on a tank barge, the vessel owner must request permission from the Coast Guard, provide the information about each individual cargo that the Coast Guard needs in order to analyze potential impacts and develop carriage requirements, and then comply with the requirements specified. Although the proposed policy letter would have standardized that information and request process for SGEWW, withdrawal of the policy letter does not change the Coast Guard's authority to consider approving unlisted cargoes on a case-by-case basis under the existing regulations. Comments Received Form letters. Of the 70,115 comments the Coast Guard received, 68,747 comments were brief statements in similar format and wording that expressed disapproval of the proposed policy letter and expressed opposition to hydraulic fracturing. Commenters stated concerns that a spill or accident would release toxic chemicals into our rivers and could put our drinking water at risk. The Coast Guard notes the general concerns expressed in these comments, but also notes these comments expressed the writers' general opposition to the proposed policy letter without offering input regarding the substance of transporting SGEWW in bulk as described in the policy. The Coast Guard has no legal authority to permit, prohibit, or place conditions on the practice of fracking itself. The Coast Guard's only authority in this matter is the authority to evaluate the safety of SGEWW as a cargo and set conditions on its carriage by vessel. Other comments. We also received approximately 1,368 comments that did not employ a form template and are discussed here and below. One submission \1\ was signed by representatives of 140 organizations and other entities from various States. This (and comments submitted by others) stated that the Coast Guard should expect wide interest in SGEWW barging and that a rulemaking, rather than a policy letter, is the appropriate approach to this issue. Commenters indicated a rulemaking would more clearly prescribe rules, how to achieve compliance, a consistent and transparent implementation process, an effective means of enforcement, and improved opportunities for public participation. The Coast Guard does not agree that a rulemaking would have provided more transparency or opportunities for public participation than were provided in the public comment period on the proposed policy letter. Detailed information on how to achieve compliance is often better suited to guidance documents such as the withdrawn policy letter. Effective enforcement is already provided via existing regulations prohibiting the carriage of unlisted cargoes without specific permission from the Coast Guard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Docketed as USCG-2013-0915-0932. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The comment also noted that the proposed chemical analysis protocol allows shippers to propose alternatives but those alternatives would not be [[Page 8978]] transparent to the general public. Many Coast Guard regulations provide the opportunity to propose alternatives or equivalent methods of compliance for the Coast Guard's approval; for examples see 46 CFR 62.15-1, 114.540, and 110.20-1, among others. Allowing alternatives provides the flexibility to use new technology, including improved safety and pollution prevention equipment. In addition, the Coast Guard consistently explains in its policy letters and other guidance that it will consider alternate methods of compliance with the binding statutory and regulatory requirements. Coast Guard determinations on alternate or equivalent methods of compliance generally are not publicly available because they do not create rights or obligations for anyone other than the requester, and they could contain proprietary information about the alternative requested or approved. The same group of 140 organizations and entities submitted another comment,\2\ stating that the proposed policy letter would result in uncertain or unknown effects or risks to various aspects of the environment and public health. The commenters also thought the proposed policy would result in negative impacts to areas that have unique historical, cultural, and ecological characteristics. The Coast Guard notes the concerns raised in these comments and will carefully consider the environmental impacts of each request to ship SGEWW by barge on a case-by-case basis under existing regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Docketed as USCG-2013-0915-1036. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another submission \3\ was made on behalf of 46 organizations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kentucky, Illinois, New York, and West Virginia. This comment (and comments submitted by others) has similarly stated that the Coast Guard should require chemical analyses of SGEWW barge loads to be submitted to the agency, not merely held by industry. Under the proposed policy, vessel owners would have retained records of the chemical analyses and surveys, but the Coast Guard would have examined those records prior to allowing workers or Coast Guard personnel to enter a barge's tank. Also, by cumulating data from the chemical analyses records we could determine whether hazardous materials had built up within the barge's tank. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Docketed as USCG-2013-0915-0855. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Various commenters, including some commenters employing a form template, also said that the Coast Guard's use of a categorical exclusion to preclude more thorough environmental analysis of the proposed policy letter's impact was improper under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 \4\ (NEPA), and that more environmental analysis of the effects of the proposed policy letter is necessary to assess the likelihood of a spill. The Coast Guard intends to evaluate the environmental impacts under NEPA for each request to ship SGEWW by barge, on a case-by-case basis under existing regulations. This information may be used, as appropriate, to inform any future rulemaking or guidance on this issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Codified as 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the commenters believe the Coast Guard gave inadequate consideration to worker safety hazards and mitigation measures. As described above, however, the Coast Guard would have used the analyses and surveys described in the proposed policy to evaluate the safety of the barge tanks before allowing personnel to enter. In addition, once the chemical components of each individual load of SGEWW were identified, the Coast Guard could have used the regulatory process for unlisted cargoes to prescribe other protocols to mitigate safety risks to workers. The Coast Guard also received many comments from individuals raising additional varied concerns. Some comments requested an extension of the public comment period, which is unnecessary in light of this withdrawal. Other comments stated that the proposed policy letter unfairly transfers industry costs and risks to society in general; we disagree that Coast Guard decisions on safe transport of SGEWW in bulk by water necessarily transfer costs and risks away from industry, especially as the proposed policy does not affect the creation or disposal of SGEWW, or its transport by truck or rail. We also received comments saying that the Coast Guard provided inadequate information about SGEWW's ultimate destination and the methods for its ultimate disposal; the ultimate destination and disposal of SGEWW was outside the scope of our proposed policy on safely transporting SGEWW. Also, commenters thought that the Coast Guard provided inadequate information about cleanup plans in the event of an SGEWW spill, but environmental liability and cleanup requirements were outside the scope and purpose of the proposed policy. The Coast Guard intends to evaluate requests to ship SGEWW by barge on a case-by-case basis under existing regulations. Any other statutes or regulations found to be applicable under this case-by-case review would be included when developing carriage requirements. Of the comments received, 21 comments thought the proposed policy letter should be finalized. These commenters suggested that the risk of transporting SGEWW by vessel was lower relative to transport by rail or truck, or that SGEWW is less hazardous than other vessel-borne cargoes such as oil and gasoline. The Coast Guard notes these comments in support of the proposed policy letter. The Coast Guard appreciates all the comments received. It will continue to study this issue in light of the comments received before taking any further action on this matter. In particular, the Coast Guard will assess whether current regulations are adequate to handle requests for transport of SGEWW in bulk and environmental impacts that may be associated with SGEWW transport by barge. Dated: February 17, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2016-03674 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
![8976 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Notices
Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 The meeting will be closed to the
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, public in accordance with the
Physiology, and Biological Chemistry (Telephone Conference Call). provisions set forth in sections
Research; 93.862, Genetics and Contact Person: Sherry L Dupere, Ph.D., 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice
Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
as amended. The grant applications and
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 the discussions could disclose
Biomedical Research and Research Training, Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, confidential trade secrets or commercial
National Institutes of Health, HHS) MD 20892 –7510, 301–451–3415, duperes@ property such as patentable material,
Dated: February 17, 2016. mail.nih.gov. and personal information concerning
Melanie J. Gray, Name of Committee: National Institute of individuals associated with the grant
Child Health and Human Development applications, the disclosure of which
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Special Emphasis Panel; Pelvic Floor would constitute a clearly unwarranted
Committee Policy.
Disorders—Data Coordinating Center. invasion of personal privacy.
[FR Doc. 2016–03637 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am] Date: March 14, 2016.
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Time: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Name of Committee: National Institute on
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Phase III
applications. Clinical Trials for AD.
Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Date: March 14, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
HUMAN SERVICES Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski,
Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, applications.
National Institutes of Health Place: National Institute on Aging,
Division of Scientific Review, National
Institute of Child Health and Human Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892,
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Exeuctive Blvd.,
Rm. 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– (Telephone Conference Call).
Development; Notice of Closed Contact Person: Maurizio Grimaldi, MD,
6884, leszczyd@mail.nih.gov.
Meetings Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National
Name of Committee: National Institute of
Institute on Aging, National Institutes of
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Child Health and Human Development Initial
Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Review Group Developmental Biology
2C218, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–496–9374,
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Subcommittee.
grimaldim2@mail.nih.gov.
hereby given of the following meetings. Date: March 16–17, 2016.
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
The meetings will be closed to the Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research,
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
public in accordance with the National Institutes of Health, HHS)
applications.
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Dated: February 17, 2016.
and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW, Melanie J. Gray,
amended. The grant applications and Washington, DC 20015.
the discussions could disclose Contact Person: Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D., Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Officer, Division of
property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy [FR Doc. 2016–03635 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am]
and personal information concerning Shriver National Institute of Child Health BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
individuals associated with the grant and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 6100
Executive Blvd., Room 5B01–G, Bethesda,
applications, the disclosure of which
MD 20892, 301–435–6878, wedeenc@ DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
would constitute a clearly unwarranted mail.nih.gov.
invasion of personal privacy. SECURITY
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Name of Committee: National Institute of Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; Coast Guard
Child Health and Human Development 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children;
Special Emphasis Panel. 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation [Docket No. USCG–2013–0915]
Date: March 7, 2016. Research; 93.209, Contraception and
Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. RIN 1625–ZA31
Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Institutes of Health, HHS)
applications. Carriage of Conditionally Permitted
Place: NIH, Room 5B01, 6100 Executive Dated: February 17, 2016. Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in
Blvd., Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Michelle Trout, Bulk
Conference Call). Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Contact Person: Sherry L Dupere, Ph.D., Committee Policy. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice [FR Doc. 2016–03646 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces
Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100
Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, that it has withdrawn the October 30,
MD 20892–7510, 301–451–3415, duperes@ 2013, proposed policy letter concerning
mail.nih.gov. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
the carriage of shale gas extraction waste
HUMAN SERVICES
This notice is being published less than 15 water (SGEWW) in bulk via barge. The
days prior to the meeting due to the timing policy letter proposed a new
National Institutes of Health
limitations imposed by the review and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
standardized process and specified
funding cycle. conditions under which a barge owner
National Institute on Aging; Notice of
Name of Committee: National Institute of could request and be granted a
Child Health and Human Development Closed Meeting
Special Emphasis Panel.
Certificate of Inspection endorsement or
Date: March 14, 2016. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the letter allowing the barge to transport
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as SGEWW in bulk. That proposed policy
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is is withdrawn and no new policy is
applications. hereby given of the following meeting. proposed at this time. Barge owners may
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Feb 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_9011/page/1.svg)
![8978 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2016 / Notices
transparent to the general public. Many proposed policy letter’s impact was Of the comments received, 21
Coast Guard regulations provide the improper under the National comments thought the proposed policy
opportunity to propose alternatives or Environmental Policy Act of 1969 4 letter should be finalized. These
equivalent methods of compliance for (NEPA), and that more environmental commenters suggested that the risk of
the Coast Guard’s approval; for analysis of the effects of the proposed transporting SGEWW by vessel was
examples see 46 CFR 62.15–1, 114.540, policy letter is necessary to assess the lower relative to transport by rail or
and 110.20–1, among others. Allowing likelihood of a spill. The Coast Guard truck, or that SGEWW is less hazardous
alternatives provides the flexibility to intends to evaluate the environmental than other vessel-borne cargoes such as
use new technology, including impacts under NEPA for each request to oil and gasoline. The Coast Guard notes
improved safety and pollution ship SGEWW by barge, on a case-by- these comments in support of the
prevention equipment. In addition, the case basis under existing regulations. proposed policy letter.
Coast Guard consistently explains in its This information may be used, as The Coast Guard appreciates all the
policy letters and other guidance that it appropriate, to inform any future comments received. It will continue to
will consider alternate methods of rulemaking or guidance on this issue. study this issue in light of the comments
compliance with the binding statutory Finally, the commenters believe the received before taking any further action
and regulatory requirements. Coast Coast Guard gave inadequate on this matter. In particular, the Coast
Guard determinations on alternate or consideration to worker safety hazards Guard will assess whether current
equivalent methods of compliance and mitigation measures. As described regulations are adequate to handle
generally are not publicly available above, however, the Coast Guard would requests for transport of SGEWW in
because they do not create rights or have used the analyses and surveys bulk and environmental impacts that
obligations for anyone other than the described in the proposed policy to may be associated with SGEWW
requester, and they could contain evaluate the safety of the barge tanks transport by barge.
proprietary information about the before allowing personnel to enter. In
Dated: February 17, 2016.
alternative requested or approved. addition, once the chemical components
The same group of 140 organizations of each individual load of SGEWW were J.G. Lantz,
and entities submitted another identified, the Coast Guard could have Director of Commercial Regulations and
comment,2 stating that the proposed used the regulatory process for unlisted Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
policy letter would result in uncertain cargoes to prescribe other protocols to [FR Doc. 2016–03674 Filed 2–22–16; 8:45 am]
or unknown effects or risks to various mitigate safety risks to workers. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
aspects of the environment and public The Coast Guard also received many
health. The commenters also thought comments from individuals raising
the proposed policy would result in additional varied concerns. Some DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
negative impacts to areas that have comments requested an extension of the SECURITY
unique historical, cultural, and public comment period, which is [Docket No. DHS–2016–0011]
ecological characteristics. The Coast unnecessary in light of this withdrawal.
Guard notes the concerns raised in these Other comments stated that the Meeting: Homeland Security Advisory
comments and will carefully consider proposed policy letter unfairly transfers Council
the environmental impacts of each industry costs and risks to society in
request to ship SGEWW by barge on a general; we disagree that Coast Guard AGENCY: The Office of Public
case-by-case basis under existing decisions on safe transport of SGEWW Engagement, DHS.
regulations. in bulk by water necessarily transfer ACTION: Notice of open teleconference
Another submission 3 was made on costs and risks away from industry, Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
behalf of 46 organizations in Ohio, especially as the proposed policy does
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kentucky, not affect the creation or disposal of SUMMARY: The Homeland Security
Illinois, New York, and West Virginia. SGEWW, or its transport by truck or rail. Advisory Council (‘‘Council’’) will meet
This comment (and comments We also received comments saying that via teleconference on March 15, 2016.
submitted by others) has similarly stated the Coast Guard provided inadequate The meeting will be open to the public.
that the Coast Guard should require information about SGEWW’s ultimate DATES: The Council conference call will
chemical analyses of SGEWW barge destination and the methods for its take place from 2:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.
loads to be submitted to the agency, not ultimate disposal; the ultimate EST on March 15, 2016. Please note that
merely held by industry. Under the destination and disposal of SGEWW the meeting may end early if the
proposed policy, vessel owners would was outside the scope of our proposed Council has completed its business.
have retained records of the chemical policy on safely transporting SGEWW. ADDRESSES: The Council meeting will be
analyses and surveys, but the Coast Also, commenters thought that the Coast held via teleconference. Members of the
Guard would have examined those Guard provided inadequate information public interested in participating may
records prior to allowing workers or about cleanup plans in the event of an do so by following the process outlined
Coast Guard personnel to enter a barge’s SGEWW spill, but environmental below (see ‘‘Public Participation’’).
tank. Also, by cumulating data from the liability and cleanup requirements were Written comments must be submitted
chemical analyses records we could outside the scope and purpose of the and received by Wednesday, March 9,
determine whether hazardous materials proposed policy. The Coast Guard 2016. Comments must be identified by
had built up within the barge’s tank. intends to evaluate requests to ship Docket No. DHS–2016–0011 and may be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Various commenters, including some SGEWW by barge on a case-by-case submitted by one of the following
commenters employing a form template, basis under existing regulations. Any methods:
also said that the Coast Guard’s use of other statutes or regulations found to be • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
a categorical exclusion to preclude more applicable under this case-by-case www.regulations.gov. Follow the
thorough environmental analysis of the review would be included when instructions for submitting comments.
developing carriage requirements. • Email: HSAC@hq.dhs.gov. Include
2 Docketed as USCG–2013–0915–1036. Docket No. DHS–2015–0013 in the
3 Docketed as USCG–2013–0915–0855. 4 Codified as 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. subject line of the message.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Feb 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_9011/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-02 14:33:30
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 14:33:30
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of withdrawal. | |
| Dates | The proposed policy letter was withdrawn February 23, 2016. | |
| Contact | If you have questions on this notice, call or email Dr. Cynthia A. Znati, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Hazardous Materials Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1412, email [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 8976 | |
| RIN Number | 1625-ZA31 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR