[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68457-68459]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0017]

Occupational Exposure to Noise Standard; Extension of the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and

Budget's (OMB) approval of the collections of information contained in
the Occupational Exposure to Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
December 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0017, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business
hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0017) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collection of
information requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    The collections of information specified in the Noise Standard
protect workers from suffering material hearing impairment. The
collections of information contained in the Noise Standard include
conducting noise monitoring; notifying workers when they are exposed at
or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels; providing
workers with initial and annual audiograms; notifying workers of a loss
in hearing based on comparing audiograms; maintaining records of
workplace noise exposure and workers' audiograms; and allowing workers
access to materials and records required by the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed collection of information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the collection of information requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 115,855 burden
hours (from 2,068,736 to 2,184,591 burden hours). The increase is a
result of a 5.6% estimated increase in the number of workers and
manufacturing establishments overall, according to U.S. Census Bureau
statistics. The Agency is also requesting an adjustment increase in
operation and maintenance costs from $26,296,876 to $31,242,929 (a
total increase of $4,946,053), which reflects increased audiometric
testing costs.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Occupational Exposure to Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0048.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 221,603.
    Total Responses: 15,356,111.
    Frequency of Responses: Annually; On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,184,591.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $31,242,929.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0017).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of

comments. For information about security procedures concerning the
delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier
service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY
(877) 889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as their social security number
and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 29, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-23984 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 20568]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97235; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Position and
Exercise Limits for Options on Apple Inc. Stock (``AAPL'')

March 31, 2023.
    On November 7, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to increase the
position and exercise limits for options on Apple Inc. stock
(``AAPL''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 25, 2022.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96353 (Nov. 18,
2022), 87 FR 72568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2022, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\
the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\ On February 22, 2023, the Commission instituted
proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
On March 30, 2023, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-
CBOE-2022-057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96570 (Dec. 22,
2022), 87 FR 80212 (Dec. 29, 2022).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96965 (Feb. 22,
2023), 88 FR 12705 (February 28, 2023).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07143 Filed 4-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39390-39392]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15614]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69853; File No. SR-ISE-2013-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program

June 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 21, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to extend two pilot programs related to its Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site www.ise.com, at the principal
office of

the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently has two pilot programs related to its
PIM.\3\ The current pilot period provided in paragraphs .03 and .05 of
the Supplementary Material to Rule 723 is set to expire on July 18,
2013.\4\ Paragraph .03 provides that there is no minimum size
requirement for orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement
Mechanism. Paragraph .05 concerns the termination of the exposure
period by unrelated orders. In accordance with the Approval Order, the
Exchange has continually submitted certain data in support of extending
the current pilot programs. The Exchange proposes to extend these pilot
programs in their present form, through July 18, 2014, to give the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to evaluate the effects of
these pilot programs before the Exchange requests permanent approval of
the rules. To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIM
Functionality, ISE will also continue to provide additional PIM-related
data as requested by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50819 (December 8,
2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (SR-ISE-2003-06) (Approving
the PIM pilot (the ``Approval Order'')); 52027 (July 13, 2005), 70
FR 41804 (July 20, 2005) (SR-ISE-2005-30); 54146 (July 14, 2006), 71
FR 41490 (July 21, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-39); 56106 (July 19, 2007), 72
FR 40914 (July 25, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-64); 56156 (July 27, 2007), 72
FR 43305 (August 3, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-66); 58197 (July 18, 2008),
73 FR 43810 (July 28, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-60); 60333 (July 17, 2009),
74 FR 36792 (July 24, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-52); 62513 (July 16, 2010),
75 FR 43221 (July 23, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-75); and 64931 (July 20,
2011), 76 FR 44642 (July 26, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-41).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67202 (June 14,
2012), 77 FR 36589 (June 19, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in
that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the
Exchange believes the pilot programs are consistent with the Exchange
Act because they provide opportunity for price improvement for all
orders executed in the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism. Further,
the Exchange believes that the data demonstrates that there is
sufficient investor interest and demand to extend the pilot programs
for an additional twelve months. The Exchange further believes it is
appropriate to extend the pilot programs to provide the Exchange and
Commission more data upon which to evaluate the rules.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the pilot
programs, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of
the PIM. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \5\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \8\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
noted that such waiver will permit the pilot programs to continue
without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the pilot programs to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission
notes that, because the filing was submitted for immediate
effectiveness on June 21, 2013, the fact that the current rule
provisions do not expire until July 18, 2013 will afford interested
parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange
requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18,
2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2013-41 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-41. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2013-41 and should be submitted on or before July 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15614 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 74168]
[DOCID:fr05de08-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13277-000]

Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

November 28, 2008.
    On August 11, 2008, Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ventura Ocean Energy Project,
to be located on Long Island Sound and Shelter Island Sound in Suffolk
County, New York.
    The proposed Shelter Island Tidal Energy Project consists of: (1) 1
proposed Red Hawk TISEC generating units having a total installed
capacity of 5 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC,
project would have an average annual generation of 14,000 gigawatt-
hours and be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Roger Bason, Natural Currents Energy
Services, 24 Roxanne Boulevard, Highland, New York 12561, phone (845)
691-4009.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13277) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28777 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41049-41050]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1651-002.
    Applicants: Golden State Water Company.
    Description: Updated market power analysis of Golden State Water
Company.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1663-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20121217-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1799-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Potomac River, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession--Potomac River to be effective 6/
28/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1800-000.

    Applicants: GenOn Power Midwest, LP.
    Description: Notice of Succession--Reliability--Power Midwest to be
effective 6/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1801-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Power Midwest, LP.
    Description: Notice of Succession--MBR--Power Midwest to be
effective 6/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1802-000.
    Applicants: GenOn REMA, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession--REMA to be effective 6/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1803-000.
    Applicants: GenOn West, LP.
    Description: Notice of Succession--California South to be effective
6/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1804-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: IFA and Distribution Service Agreement with Wintec
Energy to be effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1805-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Revised Added Facilities Rate for Green Borders
Geothermal, LLC to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1806-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Cancellation of APS Service Schedule 305 to be
effective 8/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1807-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: MISO-SPP Joint Operating Agreement Baseline to be
effective 6/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1808-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 2013-6-27--CAPX--OMA--Fargo--307--0.2.0--Filing to be
effective 9/28/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1809-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2198R7 Kansas Power Pool NITSA and NOA to be effective
5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1810-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Attachment C--O&M Annual Update to be effective 9/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1811-000.
    Applicants: Sky River LLC.
    Description: Amended and Restated Shared Facilities Agreement to be
effective 6/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1812-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 2013-6-27--CAPX--TCEA--Fargo--281--0.2.0--Filing to be
effective 9/28/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20130627-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 27, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16324 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53097]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4495-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Guam; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the territory of Guam (FEMA-4495-DR), dated March 27, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated March 27, 2020 for the territory of Guam is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the territory of Guam are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20676 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78177-78179]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31428]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1243; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-058-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model
172 Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA01303WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require installing a full
authority digital engine control (FADEC) backup battery, replacing the
supplement pilot's operating handbook and FAA approved airplane flight
manual, and replacing the FADEC backup battery every 12 calendar
months. This proposed AD was prompted by an incident where an airplane
experienced an in-flight engine shutdown caused by a momentary loss of
electrical power to the FADEC. We are proposing this AD to prevent
interruption of electrical power to the FADEC, which could result in an
uncommanded engine shutdown. This failure could lead to a loss of
engine power.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 31,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines Service GmbH, Platanenstra[szlig]e 14, D-
09350 Lichtenstein, Deutschland; telephone: +49 (37204) 696-1474; fax:
+49 (37204) 696-1910; Internet: http://www.thielert.com/. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Rejniak, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road,
Room 100; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1243;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-058-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    In 2007, a Diamond DA42 airplane experienced a dual in-flight
engine shutdown. Our review of the incident determined the root cause
was an unsafe design feature that allowed momentary interruption of
electrical power to both engine FADECs. The interruption caused the
FADECs to reset, shutting down both engines with a consequent loss of
engine power. Cessna Model 172 airplanes modified by STC No. SA01303WI
have a similar unsafe design feature that can allow the FADEC to shut
down or reset if the main battery is depleted and the electrical
charging system malfunctions.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncommanded
engine shutdown. This failure could lead to a loss of engine power.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH Service Bulletins TM TAE
601-0007, Revision 8, dated October 14, 2010, and TM TAE 601-1001 P1,
Revision 8, dated October 14, 2010. The service information describes
procedures for installation of a FADEC backup battery.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes with a 14-volt battery    24 work-hours x $85 per             $820          $2,860         $14,300
 system; installation of a 14-volt       hour = $2,040.
 FADEC backup battery.
For airplanes with a 28-volt battery    24 work-hours x $85 per            1,160           3,200          28,800
 system; installation of a 28-volt       hour = $2,040.
 FADEC backup battery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1243; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-058-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 31, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all serial numbers of the following
airplanes, certified in any category, that are modified by
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA01303WI, as identified in
Table 1 of this AD:

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model                          Engine             Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 172F, 172G, 172H, 172I, 172K,   TAE 125-01                         1
 172L, 172M, F172F, F172G, F172H,
 F172K, F172L, and F172M.
(2) 172F, 172G, 172H, 172I, 172K,   TAE 125-02-99                      2
 172L, 172M, F172F, F172G, F172H,
 F172K, F172L, and F172M.
(3) 172N, 172P, F172N, and F172P..  TAE 125-01                         3
(4) 172N, 172P, F172N, and F172P..  TAE 125-02-99                      4
(5) 172R and 172S.................  TAE 125-01                         5
(6) 172R and 172S.................  TAE 125-02-99                      6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 72: Engine.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by an incident where an airplane
experienced an in-flight engine shutdown caused by a momentary loss
of electrical power to the FADEC. We are issuing this AD to prevent
interruption of electrical power to the FADEC, which could result in
an uncommanded engine shutdown. This failure could lead to a loss of
engine power.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For all airplanes: Modify the     Within the next 100 hours time-in-    (i) For groups 1, 3, and 5
 engine electrical system by           service after the effective date of   airplanes: Follow Thielert Aircraft
 installing a backup battery system    this AD or within 30 days after the   Engines GmbH Service Bulletin TM
 and associated wiring and             effective date of this AD,            TAE 601[dash]0007, Revision 8,
 circuitry.                            whichever occurs first.               dated October 14, 2010.

                                      ....................................  (ii) For groups 2, 4, and 6
                                                                             airplanes: Follow Thielert Aircraft
                                                                             Engines GmbH Service Bulletin TM
                                                                             TAE 601-1001 P1, Revision 8, dated
                                                                             October 14, 2010.
(2) For all airplanes: Replace the    Within 12 calendar months after       (i) For groups 1, 3, and 5
 FADEC backup battery.                 doing the modification required in    airplanes: Follow page 8 of Chapter
                                       paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and       20-AMM-24-01-US, Issue 2, Revision
                                       repetitively thereafter within 12     No.: 2, dated October 8, 2010, of
                                       calendar months after the previous    Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH
                                       replacement.                          Supplement Airplane Maintenance
                                                                             Manual Cessna 172 & Reims F172 TAE
                                                                             125-01, Doc. No.: AMM-20-01
                                                                             (U.S.[dash]Version) Version: 2/4.
                                      ....................................  (ii) For groups 2, 4, and 6
                                                                             airplanes: Follow page 7 of Chapter
                                                                             20-AMM-24-02-US, Issue: 1, Rev. No:
                                                                             1, dated October 8, 2010, of
                                                                             Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH
                                                                             Supplement Airplane Maintenance
                                                                             Manual Cessna 172 & Reims F172
                                                                             CENTURION 2.0 (TAE 125-02-99), Doc.
                                                                             No.: AMM-20-02 (U.S.[dash]Version)
                                                                             Version: 1/1.
(3) For groups 1 and 2 airplanes:     Before further flight after doing     Not applicable.
 Incorporate Thielert Aircraft         the modification required in
 Engines GmbH Supplemental Airplane    paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
 Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating
 Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane
 Flight Manual Supplement (as
 applicable), TAE-No.: 20-0310-
 21042, Issue 2-1, dated October 4,
 2010, into the pilot's operating
 handbook.
(4) For groups 3 and 4 airplanes:     Before further flight after doing     Not applicable.
 Incorporate Thielert Aircraft         the modification required in
 Engines GmbH Supplemental Airplane    paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
 Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating
 Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane
 Flight Manual Supplement (as
 applicable), TAE-No.: 20-0310-
 20042, Issue 2-1, dated October 4,
 2010, into the pilot's operating
 handbook.
(5) For groups 5 and 6 airplanes:     Before further flight after doing     Not applicable.
 Incorporate Thielert Aircraft         the modification required in
 Engines GmbH Supplemental Pilot's     paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
 Operating Handbook and FAA Approved
 Airplane Flight Manual Supplement,
 TAE-No.: 20-0310-22042, Issue 2-1,
 dated October 4, 2010, into the
 pilot's operating handbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Wichita 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 the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.

Related Information

    (h) For more information about this AD, contact Richard Rejniak,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines Service GmbH, Platanenstra[szlig]e 14, D-
09350 Lichtenstein, Deutschland; telephone: +49 (37204) 696-1474;
fax: +49 (37204) 696-1910; Internet: http://www.thielert.com/. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 9, 2010.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31428 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


(amended with beach sand and kaolinite clay) containing 84%, 90%, and
100% clay.

These data indicated that the tolerance range of this amphipod to clay
content is between about 72 to 84%. As such, caution should be used when
conducting L. plumulosus toxicity tests with sediments with clay content
greater than about 70%. This should not have a significant impact on
using this species in the NAF and SBM toxicity testing program, since
field sediments seldom exceed 70% clay content (Suedel and Rodgers,
1991).

Culture Methods (Leptocheirus plumulosus)

Overview: Populations of L. plumulosus can be maintained through several
generations in the laboratory. The culture conditions specified in ASTM
E 1367-92 and E 1367-99 are provided in Table 1.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1 . Culture
conditions for L. plumulosus. Conditions listed are consistent with
culture conditions specified in ASTM E 1367-92 and subsequent updates (E
1367-99)

Parameter	Conditions

Temperature	20±1 oC

Salinity	20±1‰

Light Quality	Wide-spectrum fluorescent or cool white lights

Illuminance	500-1,000 lux

Photoperiod	14h light: 10h dark

Culture Chamber	Shallow plastic tubs or glass aquaria

Sediment Volume	1-2 cm depth at bottom of each culture chamber

Renewal of overlying water	Static renewal (30-50% water volume change
2-4

times per week)

Number of organisms/chamber	Start with about 300 mixed age (mostly
immature and young adults) individuals per chamber

Feeding	0.1 to 0.5 g dry mixture 2-3 times per week (see section
<IP_ADDRESS>)

Aeration	Continuous gentle to moderate aeration so as to not

suspend sediments

Overlying Water	Clean natural or synthetic seawater

Overlying water quality	Salinity, temperature, and ammonia during
culture

start-up

In addition to the conditions provided in Table 1, there are other
conditions that are important in maintaining healthy L. plumulosus
cultures, including identifying a source of clean sediment, sieving
sediments before use, and the quality of the raw materials used to
prepare their food. Preferably, the sediment and water used to culture
the amphipods should be collected from the same area as those used in
NAF tests. Fine-grained sediments have been shown to be suitable for
this purpose (ASTM E 1367-92). Sediments collected in the field for
culturing purposes should be first sieved through a 2,000 m mesh sieve
to remove large debris and then through a 500 m mesh sieve to remove any
indigenous organisms. L. plumulosus cultures should be maintained at
20±1 oC and 20±1‰ salinity. If used, natural seawater should be
filtered through a 5 micron filter before adding to cultures. New
culture chambers should be aerated and allowed to equilibrate overnight
before adding amphipods. Water used to start a new culture chamber
should be renewed 24 h after initiation and before amphipods are added
to culture chambers; otherwise, culture water should be renewed in
conjunction with feeding.

Cultures should be observed daily to ensure sufficient aeration. An
abundance of amphipods on the sediment surface during daylight hours may
indicate insufficient dissolved oxygen or overcrowding, as amphipods
typically remain in their burrows unless they are searching for food or
a mate. Culture chambers should be terminated and restarted with fresh
sediment about once every 8 weeks to avoid overcrowding. Overcrowding
may lead to stress due to food or space limitations, and may also result
in reduced female fecundity, thus reducing the relative health of the
population of amphipods in a given culture chamber.

Cultures should be routinely inspected for the presence of indigenous
worms and copepods, a microbial build-up, or black and sulfurous
conditions beneath the sediment surface. Microbial growth appears as a
white or gray growth associated with uneaten food, and is indicative of
overfeeding. Presence of indigenous species, excess microbial growth, or
black and sulfurous conditions may necessitate discarding the affected
culture chamber.

Feeding: A mixture of micro-algae, yeast, fish food flakes, alfalfa
powder, ground cereal leaves, and shrimp maturation feed has been used
to feed cultures (ASTM E 1367-92 and E 1367-99). Micro-algae used in
culturing include Pseudoisochrysis paradoxa, Phaeodactylum tricornutum,
and Tetraselmis suecica mixed in equal parts on a volume basis. These
algae provide a source of fatty acids that may otherwise be absent in
the diet. In practice, however, it should be noted that L. plumulosus
has been cultured successfully without the algal mixture and the yeast.
The dry food portion of the diet that has been used to successfully
culture L. plumulosus is shown in Table 2.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2 . Dry food
portion of the diet that has been used to successfully culture L.
plumulosus

Dietary Component	Proportion

Fish food flakes (e.g., TetraMin®)	48.0%

Alfalfa powder	24%

Ground cereal leaves (dried wheat leaves)	24%

Shrimp maturation feed (e.g., Neo-Novum®)	4.0%

This dry food mixture should be homogenized into a fine powder and fed
to each culture chamber at a rate of 0.1 to 0.5 g two to three times per
week, depending on culture densities. Overfeeding may result in
microbial build-up on the sediment surface. The quality of the alfalfa
powder and dried wheat leaves may not be consistent among suppliers,
thus potentially adversely affecting culture performance. Feeding should
occur immediately after culture water changes.

Obtaining Amphipods for Starting a Test (Leptocheirus plumulosus)

Immature and adult amphipods of mixed sexes and approximately 3 to 5 mm
in length (as measured from the base of the first antenna to the end of
the third pleon segment along the dorsal surface) are used in toxicity
tests, as they are easier to handle and count than younger individuals.
Gravid females are not used in testing.

The 3 to 5 mm size class individuals are passed through a 1,000 m mesh
sieve and are retained on a 710 m mesh sieve. A 500 m mesh sieve has
been used previously to retain amphipods of the size needed, but this
will  result in a wider size range of amphipods used for testing.

In preliminary NAF experiments, this wide size range may have
contributed to variability in mortality observed that was not present
when the 710 m mesh sieve was used to retain amphipods in later
experiments. The amphipods passing through a 1000 m mesh sieve but
trapped on a 710 m mesh sieve provide a more uniform size range of
animals that is thought to decrease the previously-observed variability
in mortality. Laboratories are encouraged to use this type of approach
to reduce the variability in the size of amphipods used in the NAF/SBM
testing program.

Control Sediments

Overview: Control sediment must meet certain minimum requirements to be
used in the NAF/SBM testing program. The primary requirement is that the
sediment should be able to support L. plumulosus in cultures for
extended periods of time. This will ensure that the sediment is
chemically nontoxic and that the physical and chemical characteristics
of the sediment (e.g., total organic carbon, particle size distribution,
and moisture content) are within the tolerance range of the test
species. It is expected that separate aliquots of the culture sediment
will also be used as a control sediment to be amended by NAFs or SBMs in
the NAF/SBM testing program. Any modifications made to the control
sediments should be noted in the report.

Characterization: Sediments used in testing should be characterized for
total organic carbon (TOC), particle size distribution (sand, silt, and
clay), and percent water content. These parameters have been shown to
influence the results of NAF/SBM toxicity to L. plumulosus in initial
experiments. Variations in these sediment characteristics should be
quantified so that potential effects of these parameters on test results
can be closely monitored.

Collection: Control sediments should be collected from the amphipod
collection site or from another area that can provide a consistent
source of sediment with characteristics within the tolerance range of L.
plumulosus. Sediments showing evidence of chemical contamination should
not be used in the NAF/SBM testing program. Any site water overlying the
sediment should be retained so that fine particles suspended in the
water can be re-combined with the sediment before use. Sediment salinity
and temperature should be recorded at the time of collection. Sediment
collected for use should be homogenized and a composite sample prepared
for analysis for the parameters outlined above.

Sieving: Sediments collected in the field for culturing and testing
purposes should be first press-sieved through a 2,000 or similar mesh
sieve to remove large debris and then through a 500 mesh sieve to remove
any indigenous organisms. Sediments have also been press-sieved through
a 250 to 350 mesh sieve prior to testing to aid in the enumeration of
amphipods on a 500 mesh sieve at test termination.

Storage: The control sediment should be stored in plastic or glass
containers at 4 oC until test initiation. The sediment should be stored
in the dark and should not be allowed to freeze or dry out during
storage (ASTM E 1367-92).

Test Water

Water used in the NAF/SBM testing program should be available in
sufficient quantities and be acceptable to L. plumulosus. The minimum
requirement for acceptable water for use in the NAF/SBM testing program
is that healthy test organisms survive in the water, and in the water
plus control sediment, for the duration of holding and testing without
showing signs of disease or stress (ASTM E 1367-99). Another test for
acceptability of the test water would be its successful use in the
culturing of L. plumulosus (with the control sediment).

Natural seawater or synthetic salt water can be used in the NAF/SBM
testing program. Natural salt water should be obtained from an
uncontaminated area known to support a healthy, reproducing population
of L. plumulosus or similar sensitive species. Reconstituted salt water
can be prepared by adding commercially available sea salt in specified
quantities. Natural seawater should be filtered by passing through a 5
micron filter before use. The reader is referred to ASTM E 1367-92 or E
1367-99 for more information concerning test water.

Procedures

Mixing NAFs or SBMs with Control Sediment

EPA Method 1646 describes the method that should be used for amending
control sediments with NAFs and SBMs. The control sediment should be
sieved and homogenized before wet to dry weight ratio and density
determinations are made and before NAFs are added to the control
sediment. The following steps were given in EPA Method 1646 for mixing
NAFs and SBMs with control sediments (parentheses were added here to
provide additional information).

Determine the wet to dry weight ratio for the control sediment (three
replicates of 30 g each has been used successfully)

Determine the density (g/ml) of the control sediment (three replicates
of >25 ml is suitable for this purpose);

Determine the amount of NAF or SBM needed to obtain a desired test
concentration;

Determine the amount of wet sediment required;

Determine the amount of dry sediment in kilograms for each test
concentration;

Determine the amount of NAF or SBM required to amend the control
sediment at each test concentration;

Mix NAF or SBM with control sediment;

Test for homogeneity of NAF or SBM in sediment, and;

Mix sufficient quantities of NAF or SBM with control sediment for each
treatment of amended or spiked sediment.

Estimate of Require NAF and SBM Required

The six steps given above for NAFs can also be applied to SBMs, except
that the third bullet in Step 3 requires a measurement of the density of
the SBM. The density of the SBM can then be used to estimate the
quantity required for the desired test concentration. Refer to the
formulas below for NAF and SBM calculations:

[  STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -1]

SBM Required (g) = [Conc. Desired (ml/kg)] x [Dry Weight Sediment (kg) x
[SBM Density (g/ml)]              [10-2]

See 40 CFR 435.13, 435.15, 435.43, and 435.45 for more information on
this procedure.

Mixing Procedure

Mixing the NAF or SBM with the control sediment should be accomplished
by following these steps. The control sediment alone should also be
subjected to the mixing procedure to ensure mixing has no effect on
sediment toxicity.

Place appropriate amounts of weighed NAF or SBM into a stainless steel
mixing bowl.

Tare the mixing bowl weight.

Add appropriate amount of control sediment.

Mix for 9 to15 minutes with a hand-held mixer equipped with stainless
steel blades (e.g., KitchenAid Model KHM6).

As appropriate, test mixing homogeneity as described in Section 10.3.4.

Homogeneity of Mixing

Tests for homogeneity of mixing should be performed, preferably in the
procedure development phase (see 40 CFR 435.13, 435.15, 435.43, and
435.45) by each laboratory performing NAF/SBM toxicity testing. This is
to ensure that the NAF or SBM, which can be difficult to homogenize with
control sediments, can be evenly mixed with the control sediment by each
testing laboratory.

EPA Method 1646 specifies that the coefficient of variation (CV) for a
minimum of three replicate samples of the NAF/control sediment mixture
must be less than 20%. Determinations of CV should be based on total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content of the NAF or SBM as measured by EPA
Methods 3550A and 8015M. If the initial CV is 20%, then the
NAF/SBM-sediment mixture must be re-mixed and reanalyzed until the 20%
CV limit is achieved.

Homogeneity measurements should be made on the lowest and highest NAF
concentrations for a given test. Laboratories should validate mixing
efficiency via TPH measurements (as outlined above) of the low and high
NAF concentrations. The homogeneity measurements should be made at least
once per year.

Recommended Test Conditions

The recommended test conditions for conducting the 10-day or 96-hr
sediment toxicity test with L. plumulosus are summarized in Table 3 and
are consistent with methods presented in ASTM E 1367-92 and subsequent
updates (E 1367-99). Tests should be conducted at 20±1 oC and 20±1‰
salinity with a 14h light; 10 h dark photoperiod at approximately
500-1,000 lux (or about 46 to 93 footcandles). Test chambers are 1-L
glass containers with about a 10 cm inside diameter opening (or similar
glass containers) that can contain about 150 ml sediment and 600 ml
overlying water to achieve a 4:1 (v/v) water to sediment ratio.

There are five (5) test concentrations plus a control for each NAF and
SBM test. Five (5) replicates are included for the control sediment (E
1367-99) and for each test concentration.

The control sediment/test material mixture and test water should be
added to test chambers the day before amphipods are added. This will
allow for suspended particles to settle and allow time for equilibration
of temperature and the sediment-water interface.

After the overnight equilibration period, amphipods are randomly
distributed to each test chamber. Twenty amphipods are added to each
replicate and there are five replicates per test treatment.

Amphipods caught on the water surface can be pushed under with a glass
rod. Individuals that have not burrowed within 5 to 10 minutes can be
replaced, unless they are exhibiting an avoidance response. Amphipods
are not removed at any time during the course of the toxicity test even
if they appear dead. Test water is not renewed (i.e., static) and the
amphipods are not fed during the exposure period. The toxicity test is
terminated after 96 hours or 10 days for SBMs and NAFs respectively.

Temperature, salinity, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) should be monitored
daily.

Ammonia should also be monitored in overlying water to ensure that the
concentrations of this constituent do not exceed the tolerance range of
the test species. For L. plumulosus, this is about 60 mg/L (as total
ammonia) at pH 7.7 in 10-day tests (U.S. EPA, 1994). Ammonia has not
been a problem in initial L. plumulosus 96-hr and 10-day tests with
various NAFs.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3 . Conditions
for conducting 96-hour NAF and 10-day SBM sediment toxicity tests with
L. plumulosus. Conditions listed are consistent with test conditions
specified in ASTM E 1367- 92 and subsequent updates (E 1367-99) unless
otherwise noted

Parameter	Conditions

Test Type	Static whole sediment toxicity test

Temperature	20±1 oC

Salinity	20±1‰

Light Quality	Wide-spectrum fluorescent or cool white lights

Illuminance	500-1,000 lux

Photoperiod	14h light: 10h dark *

Test Chamber	1-L glass beaker or jar

Sediment Volume	150 ml (2 cm depth)

Overlying water volume	600 ml (4:1 [v/v] water to sediment ratio)

Renewal of overlying water	None

Size and life stage of amphipods	3-5 mm; immature and adult

Number of organisms/chamber	20

Number of test concentrations	5

Number of replicate chambers/treatment	5 in both controls and test
treatments

Feeding	None

Aeration	Water in each test chamber should be

aerated throughout the test.

Overlying Water	Clean natural or synthetic seawater

Overlying water quality	Temperature, salinity, pH, and D.O.

daily; ammonia, as needed

Test duration	96 hours or 10 days

Endpoint	Survival

Test acceptability	Minimum mean control survival of 90% and satisfaction
of criteria outlined in Table 4.

*Note: Although ASTM E 1367 specifies 16h light:8h dark, the photoperiod
was changed to 14h light:10h dark to be consistent with the Mysidopsis
bahia bioassay for drilling fluids (EPA Method 1619).

Biological Data

Mortality is the endpoint for L. plumulosus at the end of the exposure
period. At test termination, the contents of each test chamber
(amphipods plus test sediment) are sieved through a 500 mesh screen to
remove amphipods.

Material retained on the screen should be rinsed into a sorting tray
with clean salt water.

The total numbers of live and dead amphipods should be recorded.

Missing animals are presumed to have died and decomposed during the test
and disintegrated.

Amphipods should be counted alive if there are any signs of movement,
such as a neuromuscular pleopod twitch (ASTM E 1367-99). Gentle prodding
may be used to elicit movement.

Quality Control

Table 4 provides the acceptability requirements for the 10-day NAF and
96-hr SBM test. The primary acceptability requirement for NAF testing is
as follows.

A toxicity test is unacceptable if more than a total of 10% of the
control organisms die, or if the coefficient of variation (CV) of
control survival is equal to or greater than 40%.

If this acceptability requirement is not met, then the data should be
discarded and the experiment repeated.

If this requirement is met, then the other acceptability requirements in
Table 4 should be reviewed and a determination made as to the
acceptability of the data.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  4 . Test
acceptability requirements for 10-day NAF and 96-hr SBM tests with L.
plumulosus. Requirements listed are consistent with those specified in
ASTM E 1367-92 and subsequent updates (E 1367-99)

Ten-day NAF and 96-hr SBM toxicity tests should usually be considered
unacceptable if one or more of the following occurred:*

A 10-day NAF and 96-hr SBM toxicity tests are unacceptable if more than
a total of 10% of the control organisms die, or if the coefficient of
variation (CV) of control survival is equal to or greater than 40%.

All test chambers were not identical.

Test organisms were not randomly or impartially distributed to test
chambers.

Required reference standard was not included in the test.

All test animals were not from the same population, were not all of the
same species, or were not of acceptable quality.

î

ˆ

-

!

"

¹

Ê

Ë

Ì

æ

æ

ç

è

ë

ì

í

î

ï

ð

d

e

f

€

‚

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

¦

§

¨

©

¬

j‰

j

jú

j}

j

j

 h¢_

 h

úöïèöãöúöÜÒËÒËÁËÁ·ÁË°ö°ö°ö°ö°ö°ö°ö°ö
°ö°ö°¨£¨£ÁËÁ·Á£œ•öŽö h

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h

 hÓ

 h

 h

:

 h#

 hÓ

 h#

ÆÿÖ

ÆÿÖ

ÆÿÖ

ÆÿÖ

ÆÿÖ

ÆÿÖ

ÆÿÖ

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h

 h#

 h

 h#

 h#

 h

@

@

…

†

‰

Š

’

“

¬

©

ý

õ

¬

®

³

´

j*

j›

j-

j§

 h

 h

 h

 h

 hk'

  hk'

 hk'

 hk'

  hk'

j

 hk'

 hk'

  hk'

 hk'

 hk'

 hk'

 hk'

 hk'

j

 h=

 h=

 h=

 h=

 h=

ë

封

}

~

€

†

‡

ˆ

‰

 h=

 h=

2

?

V

`

g

¼

½

¾

Î

Ö

Ø

Ü

 h

7]

À

ª

½

 h

”ÿô

3

 h

 h

  h

 h

 h

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

 h

  h

atory has been shown to have no significant effect on sensitivity.

The test organisms were not acclimated at the test temperature and
salinity at least 48 hours before they were placed in the test chambers.

Temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations were not measured

*Note: These guidelines are not identical to those listed ASTM E 1367 in
part because some acceptability guidelines listed in ASTM E1367-92 are
not applicable or practical for the NAF/SBM toxicity testing program.

Reference Tests

A single toxicity test will be used to determine satisfactory laboratory
performance and to determine whether an NAF or SBM can be discharged as
it adheres to drill cuttings. The reference toxicant for the NAF test
will be either a C16-C18 internal olefin reference standard or a C12-C14
or C8 ester.

The reference toxicant for the SBM testing program will be a C16-C18
internal olefin SBM which has also been specified for determining
pass/fail for SBMs. The C16-C18 internal olefin SBM is a 65/35 blend,
proportioned by mass, of hexadecene and octadecene, respectively (see 40
CFR 435.11(rr).

These reference toxicity tests will be conducted in conjunction with all
NAF or SBM tests to discern possible changes in the condition of the L.
plumulosus population used in testing. The reference toxicant test must
be conducted concurrently with each sample or batch of samples and at a
minimum should be conducted at least monthly. Control charts of this
reference standard should be maintained to perform statistical analyses,
help understand the inherent variability in the reference test, and for
long-term quality control. Test conditions for the reference test should
follow the experimental conditions presented in Table 3.

The reference toxicant test should be performed concurrently-and under
the same conditions as the NAF or SBM test.

The reference toxicant test should be conducted so that control limits
(typically set at 2 standard deviations) can be established (U.S. EPA,
1994).

If the reference test LC50 falls outside of this range of control limits
generated on the most recent test data points, then the sensitivity of
L. plumulosus and the credibility of the test results are considered
suspect. In this case, the test procedure should be examined and the
test repeated with a different batch of amphipods. A sediment test
should not automatically be judged unacceptable if the reference test
LC50 falls outside the expected range or if the control in the reference
toxicity test exceeds 10%. The width of the control limits and all
performance criteria listed in Table 4 should be considered when
determining the acceptability of a given NAF or SBM test.

Interpretation of Result

Procedures presented in this test method are used to calculate point
estimates, or LC50 values. The LC50 value and 95% confidence limits of
the NAF tests should be calculated on the basis of milligrams of NAF per
kg dry control sediment (mg/kg) and amphipod mortality.

The LC50 value and 95% confidence limits of the NAF tests should be
calculated on the basis of milliliters of NAF per kg dry control
sediment (ml/kg) and amphipod mortality.

A variety of methods can be used to calculate an LC50 value and its 95%
confidence limits, including probit, moving average, trimmed
Spearman-Karber and Litchfield-Wilcoxon methods (ASTM E 1367-99). The
method used should take into account the number of partial kills, the
number of test chambers per treatment (5), and the number of amphipods
per test chamber (20).

The only NAF-drill cuttings that can be discharge are cuttings coated
with NAFs that are as toxic or less toxic, but not more toxic, than the
reference NAF (C16-C18 internal olefin or C12-C14 or C8 ester) as
measured by LC50. This limitation is expressed in 40 CFR 435.13, 435.15,
435.43, and 435.45.

[  STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -3]

The only SBM-drill cuttings that can be discharge are cuttings coated
with SBMs that are as toxic or less toxic, but not more toxic, than the
reference SBM (C16-C18 internal olefin or C12-C14 or C8 ester) as
measured by LC50. This limitation is expressed in 40 CFR 435.13, 435.15,
435.43, and 435.45.

[  STYLEREF 1 \s  10 -4]

The NAF or SBM data should be interpreted by comparing to the reference
toxicant test LC50 value and whether it exceeds the limitations in 40
CFR 435.13, 435.15, 435.43, and 435.45.

References

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1997. Standard Guide
for Conducting 10- day Static Sediment Toxicity Tests with Marine and
Estuarine Amphipods. E 1367-92. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
11.05.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. Standard Guide
for Conducting 10- day Static Sediment Toxicity Tests with Marine and
Estuarine Amphipods. E 1367-99. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
11.05.

Emery, V.L., D.W. Moore, B.R. Gray, B.M. Duke, A.B. Gibson, R.B. Wright
and J.D. Farrar. 1997. Development of a chronic sublethal sediment
bioassay using the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus
(Shoemaker). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16:1912-1920.

McGee, B.L. D.J. Fisher, L.T. Yonkos, G.P. Ziegler and S. Turley. 1999.
Assessment of sediment contamination, acute toxicity, and population
viability of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in Baltimore
Harbor, Maryland, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:2151-2160.

Schlekat, C.E., B.L. McGee and E. Reinharz. 1992. Testing sediment
toxicity in Chesapeake Bay with the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus: an
evaluation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:225-236.

Suedel, B.C. and J.H. Rodgers, Jr. 1991. Variability of bottom sediment
characteristics of the continental United States. Water Res. Bull.
27:101-109.

U.S. EPA, 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of
Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods.
EPA/600/R-94/025. USEPA Office of Research and Development, June 1994.

U.S. EPA, 2001. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category; OMB Approval Under the Paperwork Reduction Act: Technical
Amendment, Federal Register, Volume 66, Page 6849-6919, January 22nd.

 See “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling
Procedures,” RIN 2040-AF09, Docket  No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0034.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/regulations.

  Federal regulations at 1 CFR 51.7 (c)(1) prohibit the incorporation by
reference of material published previously in the Federal Register.
These regulations prevent EPA from deleting these methods from 40 CFR
435.

 PAGE

CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

 PAGE   iv

 PAGE   v

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Page

 PAGE   iv

 PAGE   vi

 PAGE   1-9

 PAGE   6-18

 PAGE   9-15

2,000 mg carbon	×	240 g	= 480 mg carbon

Per kg dry sediment

1,000

Conc. Desired (mg/kg)	×	Dry Weight Sediment (kg)	=	Base Fluid Required
(mg)

g wet sediment	= mL wet sediment

Density (g/mL) of wet sediment

Volume sea water per bottle (Eq. 5-9)	= Ratio of sea water:wet sediment

Volume sediment water per bottle (Eq. 5-8)

Mean Wet Sediment Weight (g)	= Wet Sediment Density (g/mL)

Mean Wet Sediment Volume (mL)

Mean Wet Sediment Weight (g)	= Wet to Dry Ratio

Mean Dry Sediment Weight (g)

Conc. Desired (mL/kg)	×	Dry Weight Sediment (kg)	×	Test Substance
Density (g/mL)	=	Test Substance Required (g)

Wet Sediment per Concentration (g)	×	1 kg	= Dry Weight Sediment (kg)

Mean Wet to Dry Ratio

1,000 g

Wet Sediment Density (g/mL)	×	Volume of Sediment Required per
Concentration (mL)	=	Weight Wet Sediment Required per Conc. (g)

Mean Wet Sediment Weight (g)	= Wet Sediment Density (g/mL)

Mean Wet Sediment Volume (mL)

Wet Sediment Weight (g)	= Wet to Dry Ratio

Dry Sediment Weight (g)

96-hr LC50 Reference Drilling Fluid	≤ 1.0

10-day LC50 SBM

10-day LC50 Reference Material	≤ 1.0

10-day LC50 NAF

NAF Required (g)	 =	[Conc. Desired (mg/kg)]	×	[Dry Weight Sediment (g)]

1000 g/kg

1000 mg/g

 Integrate peaks on the EIP for comparison to calibration to determine
approximate crude oil contamination

Section <IP_ADDRESS>

Peaks present for Target Aromatics on EIP

 Crude oil contamination is below detection limit.

Report not detected

Section <IP_ADDRESS>

 Determine the C8 to C13 TIC Area for comparison to calibration
standards

Section <IP_ADDRESS>

 Obtain the EIP for

m/z 91, m/z 105, and m/z 156

Section <IP_ADDRESS>

C8 to C13 peaks seen on TIC

GC/MS Analyses

Obtain the TIC for the Sample

Section 6.11.2

Σ	Bit diameter (in)2	 × change in measured depth (ft)

	1,029

XSVD =	FSVD

	Gwell+ FSVD

Prepare Sample for Analyses

Section 6.11.1

Xi = 	Fi

	G

%BFi =	MBF	 × 100

	Mw

MD + MBF + V	= 0.95 to 1.05

Mw

@

”ÿ\

È

Ȁ沖̀Ĵ혈0鐂峿찍耕젆

ꀀ将

将

Ȁ沖̀Ĵ혈0鐂ꣿ耕ᐆ

$

(

V

Â

Æ

 hk'

\

\

	`

b

d

f

h

j

l

n

p

r

t

v

x

z

|

~

€

‚

„

†

ˆ

Š

Œ

Ž

’

”

–

˜

š

š

œ

ž

¢

¤

¦

¨

ª

¬

®

°

²

ú

$

$

$

4

6

8

:

@

$

:

N

P

d

f

h

j

@

@

@

	\

\

 hk'

	\

\

Ø	\

\

]

Co =	Ve × Cp	=	5 × I Cp

	1/5 × WT

WT

Co (mg/g) =	Cp (μg/mL)

	Ci (mg/mL)

RPD =	│D1 – D2 │	× 100

	[(D1 + D2) /2]

12 mole CH4	×	22.4 L	×	1,000 ml	×	1 mole hexadecene	×	23 g
hexadecene	×	0.03 kg	= 84 (ml)

mole hexadecene

mole CH4

L

224.4 g hexadecene

kg dry soil

culture

VCH4 (ml) =	(S + V) ×	P – Pw	×	CH4	×	273

T + 273

100

760

Corrected % CH4 =	% CH4

	1 –	D × 22.4 L/mol

18 g/mol × 1,000

Ø	\

\

@

@

@

@

Ø	\

\

Ø	\

\

	n of NAF

60 mg carbon per bottle/1,000	= 0.005 moles carbon

12 g/mole

V2 =	P1 × V1 × T2

	T1 × P2

mL wet sediment (Eq. 5-11)	×	Sea water:sediment ratio (Eq. 5-10)	=	mL
sea water to add to wet sediment

480 mg carbon	= 621 mg ethyl oleate

(77.3 ÷ 100)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19931-19932]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08469]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0841; FRL-9926-17-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs). We are
proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0841, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule(s)
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...............................             223   Emission Reduction              06/02/06        03/17/09
                                                         Permits for Large
                                                         Confined Animal
                                                         Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD
Rule 223 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 223 in the SIP, and the
District has not adopted earlier versions of this rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 223 establishes
permitting requirements for LCAFs and establishes a menu of management
practice options that LCAF owner/operators must select from and
implement. The rule requirements apply to large operations above
specified size thresholds, including dairies with at least 1,000
milking cows and poultry facilities with at least 650,000 birds. The
rule requires these operations to apply for and obtain an SCAQMD permit
that includes a mitigation plan with measures as listed in an appendix
to the rule.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section
110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements
(see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or
greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin is an ozone nonattainment
area classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and revision/relaxation requirements for the applicable
criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. It contains
clear thresholds and control requirements, and it strengthens the SIP
by adding new controls for LCAFs.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule(s)

    In our TSD we identify additional control options that may be
reasonably available for implementation in the Los Angeles-South Coast
area (see ``Additional Recommendations'') and that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until May 14, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 223--
Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities, as
listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-08469 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 39071-39072]
[DOCID:fr05au09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-30-000]

Corning Natural Gas Company; Notice of Rate Election

July 29, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 27, 2009, Corning Natural Gas Company
(Corning) filed a Notice of Rate Election and a Statement of Operating
Conditions for NGPA section 311 firm transportation service pursuant to
sections 284.123(b)(ii) and 284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations.
Corning proposes to adopt as its transportation rate its rate schedule
Service Classification 7 which is an existing transportation rate
schedule approved by the New York Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file a
motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a
party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or
before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone
filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or
protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for

review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday August 14, 2009.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18638 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P