[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 226 (Monday, November 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74716-74717]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP11-1591-000.
    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: 2020 Penalty Revenue and Costs Report
of Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201116-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-215-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--
Triad Hunter Assignment to SWN--12/1/2020 to be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201116-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-217-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2020-11-16 GT&C Section 3
Revisions to be effective 12/16/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201116-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-218-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Yankee Gas
510802 Release eff 11-17-2020 to be effective 11/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201116-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-219-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: NPBL BP Canada NRA Amendment
to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201116-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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 date(s). 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: November 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25804 Filed 11-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14835-14839]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6418]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0215; FRL-9283-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Missouri; Proposed Disapproval of Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Revision for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act), EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the Missouri CAA
Section 110(a)(2) ``Infrastructure'' State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal addressing significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in another state with respect to the 2006
24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). On December 18, 2009, Missouri submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) intended to address the infrastructure SIP
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) for ``infrastructure.'' In this
action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the Missouri SIP
revision intended to address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
prohibiting a state's emissions from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state. The rationale for the proposed action is described in this
proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2011-0215, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning & Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Ms.
Elizabeth

Kramer, Air Planning & Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2011-0215. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and should be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101, from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning &
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: (913)
551-7186; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This Section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit infrastructure SIPs to address a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\ As provided by
Section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a determination that a submitted
SIP is complete under 110(k)(1), the Administrator shall act on the
plan. As authorized in Section 110(k)(3) of the Act, where portions of
the State submittals are severable, within that 12 month period EPA may
decide to approve only those severable portions of the submittals that
meet the requirements of the Act. When the deficient provisions are not
severable from the other submitted provisions, EPA must propose
disapproval of the submittals, consistent with Section 110(k)(3) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On
September 25, 2009, EPA issued its ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(2009 Guidance). EPA developed the 2009 Guidance to make
recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the
requirements of Section 110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As identified in the 2009 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility in other states.
    In the 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from
states pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should
contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
within the state that contribute significantly to

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state. EPA further indicated that the state's submission should explain
whether or not emissions from the state have this impact and, if so,
address the impact. EPA stated that the state's conclusion should be
supported by an adequate technical analysis. EPA recommended the
various types of information that could be relevant to support the
state SIP submission, such as information concerning emissions in the
state, meteorological conditions in the state and the potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state, and air
quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA indicated that states should address
the ``interfere with maintenance'' requirement independently which
requires an evaluation of impacts on areas of other states that are
meeting the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas
designated nonattainment. Lastly in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that
states could not rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply
with CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
    EPA promulgated the CAIR on May 12, 2005, (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required states to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind
state. CAIR was intended to provide states covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
to address significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and
interference with maintenance in another state with respect to the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR
provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the
CAIR requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIP) in their
entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 11,
2008). However, in response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court
issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or
the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23,
2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to ``temporarily
preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces
it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The
Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July
11, 2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that emissions from
sources in a state must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other states. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that Missouri significantly contributes
to nonattainment and interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
    \3\ See Section IV on Defining ``Significant Contribution'' and
``Interference With Maintenance,'' 75 FR 45229 of ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 45210 (August
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 28, 2009, EPA received a SIP revision from the State of
Missouri intended to address the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well
as other requirements of Section 110(a)(2). In this rulemaking, EPA is
addressing only the requirements that pertain to prohibiting sources in
Missouri from emitting pollutants that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. In its submission, Missouri
indicated that several actions have been implemented to address the
transport of direct PM2.5 and also PM2.5
precursors of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) over time. The submission included a description of
and references to the relevant state rules intended to address the
interstate transport of emissions.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?

    Missouri's December 28, 2009, submittal included a description of
how the state has implemented rules or is developing rules to meet
various requirements to address the long-range transport of pollution.
Missouri has a number of rules included in the SIP for the control of
NOX and SO2 emissions. For example, Missouri's
SIP includes rules that control NOX emissions from Electric
Generating Units (10 CSR 10-6.360), from Cement Kilns (10 CSR 10-6.680)
and from Large Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (10 CSR 10-
6.390). EPA's preliminary photochemical modeling for the proposed
Transport Rule considered these rules and still indicates that
emissions from the State of Missouri significantly contribute to
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance in other states with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section IV on Defining ``Significant Contribution'' and
``Interference With Maintenance,'' 75 FR 45229 of ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 45210 (August
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2009 Guidance stated that a state's SIP submission pertaining
to the requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be supported by
an adequate technical analysis.\5\ EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the state's SIP
submission. While Missouri submitted a description of state rules that
have been implemented to reduce PM2.5, NOX and
SO2 emissions, the state did not further evaluate or
demonstrate with a technical analysis that these measures address the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit Missouri's air pollutant
emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, (September 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the state's submittal also indicates that it is
meeting its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in part by virtue of its approved CAIR SIP.
However, CAIR was promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
were revised in 2006 and does not address interstate transport with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ Thus, reliance on CAIR
cannot be used to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
respective 2006

NAAQS. Several states recognize that some of the controls planned for
or already installed on sources within the state (to meet CAIR
provisions) satisfied the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. However, states will not be
able to permanently rely upon the emissions reductions predicted by
CAIR, because CAIR was remanded to EPA and EPA is in the process of
developing a Transport Rule (which it has proposed as a replacement for
the remanded CAIR) to address the concerns outlined in its decision
remanding CAIR. For these reasons, EPA would not be able to approve
Missouri's SIP submission pertaining to the requirements under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies, in part, on CAIR for emission
reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's
quantification of states' significant contribution and interference
with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA.
CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon our evaluation, EPA is proposing that this SIP revision
does not meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA is proposing disapproval of the portion of Missouri's
Infrastructure SIP relating to Interstate Transport, Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The submitted provisions are severable from each
other. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove those provisions which
relate to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration and will act on
the remainder of the SIP submission in a subsequent rulemaking.
    Also, under Section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a
submittal that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C.A.
Sec. Sec.  7501-7515), or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call),
starts a sanctions clock. The provisions in the submittal we are
proposing to disapprove were not submitted to meet either of those
requirements. Therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove this
submittal, no sanctions will be triggered.
    The full or partial disapproval of a state implementation plan
revision triggers the requirement under Section 110(c) that EPA
promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval
unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator
approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates
such FIP. The Transport Rule FIP, if finalized in the manner proposed,
may address these requirements for the State of Missouri.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    We are proposing to disapprove a submission from the State of
Missouri intended to demonstrate that Missouri has adequately addressed
the elements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that require the state's
SIP to contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions
from sources within a state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment in or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to
determine that the Missouri submission does not contain adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the state
that significantly contribute to nonattainment in or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other
downwind states. Any remaining elements of the submittal, including
language to address other CAA Section 110(a)(2) elements, including
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures
required in the applicable SIP for another state designed to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality and protect visibility, are
not addressed in this action. EPA is proposing to disapprove only the
provisions which relate to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstration.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 act on state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under Section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under Section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher
offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed

disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or
local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional
costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely disapproves
certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. However, today's
proposed disapproval does not have federalism implications. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not 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. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This proposed SIP disapproval under Section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves certain state requirements for
inclusion into the SIP.

Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
Section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by Sections 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-6418 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76150-76151]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0117]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Providing Information
About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices Under Section 515A of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-New and
title ``Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices
Under Section 515A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act''. Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Medical Devices; Pediatric Uses of Devices; Requirement for Submission
of Information on Pediatric Subpopulations That Suffer From a Disease
or Condition That a Device Is Intended To Treat, Diagnose, or Cure--
(OMB Control Number 0910--New)

    The draft guidance suggests that applicants who submit certain
medical device applications include, if readily available, pediatric
use information for diseases or conditions that the device is being
used to treat, diagnose, or cure that are outside the device's approved
or proposed indications for use, as well as an estimate of the number
of pediatric patients with such diseases or conditions. The information
submitted will allow FDA to identify pediatric uses of devices outside
their approved or proposed indication for use in order to determine
areas where further pediatric device development could be useful. This
recommendation applies to applicants who submit the following
applications:
    1. Any request for a humanitarian device exemption submitted under
section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(m));
    2. Any premarket approval application (PMA) or supplement to a PMA
submitted under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e);
    3. Any product development protocol submitted under section 515 of
the FD&C Act.
    In the Federal Register of February 19, 2013, (78 FR 11654), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. However, only one comment was interpreted as
being related to the proposed collection of information.
    One comment stated that FDA should not require all readily
available information on pediatric uses of devices because it is unduly
burdensome, but rather applicants should be required to perform a
reasonable search. FDA disagrees with the comment. In order for FDA to
be provided useful, comprehensive information and to fulfill the
statutory mandate, all readily available information should be
submitted to FDA. Moreover, the requirement is not unduly burdensome
because FDA is only requiring all information that is readily
available, not all information in general.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                            Description                                 Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uses outside approved indication...................................             148                1              148              0.5               74
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Respondents are permitted to submit information relating to uses of
the device outside the approved or proposed indication if such uses are
described or acknowledged in acceptable sources of readily available
information. We estimate that 20 percent of respondents submitting
information required by section 515A of the FD&C Act will choose to
submit this information and that it will take 30 minutes for them to do
so.
    This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections
of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information
in part 814 (21 CFR part 814), subpart B have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0231, and the collections of information in part
814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332.

    Dated: December 11, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-29796 Filed 12-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6571-6573]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-0044]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for the
following collection of information: 1625--NEW, Coast Guard Living
Marine Resources (LMR) Enforcement Survey. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket

number [USCG-2012-0044] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd Street SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax (202) 475-
3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of
revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2012-0044], and
must be received by April 9, 2012. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2012-0044], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment
online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-0044''
in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0044'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

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

Information Collection Request

    Title: Coast Guard Living Marine Resources (LMR) Enforcement
Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 1625--NEW.
    Summary: The purpose of this survey is to assess the effectiveness
of various enforcement techniques available to the U.S. Coast Guard to
promote compliance with federal LMR regulations. The results of this
survey will ultimately allow the Coast Guard to link level and type of
Coast Guard enforcement efforts with compliance decisions made by the
regulated community.
    Need: The Government Performance and Results Act (Pub. L. 103-62)
requires federal agencies to evaluate the performance and effectiveness
of their programs. To evaluate the Coast Guard's LMR enforcement
effectiveness, it is necessary to assess regulated community
perceptions of various Coast Guard enforcement efforts. This analysis
of enforcement effectiveness will in turn be used by the Coast Guard to
allocate assets in such a way that efficiently maximizes influence on
compliance.
    Forms: None.

    Respondents: U.S. marine fishing permit holders and registered
saltwater recreational fishermen.
    Frequency: This survey will be a one-time collection.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 3,600 hours.

    Dated: February 1, 2012.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-2676 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 3306]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD17-7-000]

Mountain Regional Water Special Services District; Notice of
Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On December 30, 2016, Mountain Regional Water Special Services
District filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit
hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency
Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Silver Creek Hydro Energy Recovery
Facility Project would have a maximum installed capacity of 200
kilowatts (kW) and would be located on Signal Hill Water Treatment
Plant's proposed 14-inch-diameter water transmission pipe, in an
existing pump station. The project would be located in Park City, in
Summit County, Utah.
    Applicant Contact: Doug Evans--Water and Energy Manager, Mountain
Regional Water Special Services District, P.O. Box 982320, 6421 N
Business Park Loop Road, Suite A, Park City, UT 84098, Phone No. (435)
940-1916, Extension 313.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) Two proposed generating units with a
maximum installed capacity of 200-kW on a proposed 14-inch-diameter,
5,800 foot-long water distribution pipe, located in an existing pump
station, discharging into a new 2 million gallon water storage tank;
and (2) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an
initial estimated annual generating capacity of 250 megawatt-hours, and
increase to approximately 1,000 megawatt-hours by 2022.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Satisfies (Y/
       Statutory provision               Description             N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by    The conduit is a tunnel,            Y
 HREA.                             canal, pipeline,
                                   aqueduct, flume, ditch,
                                   or similar manmade
                                   water conveyance that
                                   is operated for the
                                   distribution of water
                                   for agricultural,
                                   municipal, or
                                   industrial consumption
                                   and not primarily for
                                   the generation of
                                   electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended    The facility is                     Y
 by HREA.                          constructed, operated,
                                   or maintained for the
                                   generation of electric
                                   power and uses for such
                                   generation only the
                                   hydroelectric potential
                                   of a non-federally
                                   owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended   The facility has an                 Y
 by HREA.                          installed capacity that
                                   does not exceed 5
                                   megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended  On or before August 9,              Y
 by HREA.                          2013, the facility is
                                   not licensed, or
                                   exempted from the
                                   licensing requirements
                                   of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff has preliminarily determined that the proposal
satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility
under 16 U.S.C. 823a, and is exempted from the licensing requirements
of the FPA.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: The deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD17-7-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 4, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00379 Filed 1-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27528]
[FR Doc No: E9-13543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ09-4-000]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

June 3, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 29, 2009, Bonneville Power Administration
submitted for filing certain amendments to its Open Access Transmission
Tariff (OATT) and petitions the Commission for declaratory order
accepting the revisions as satisfying the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) standards for reciprocity approval, pursuant
to 18 CFR 35.28(e), 18 CFR 385.207 and Order No. 890, Preventing Undue
Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, 118 FERC ] 61,
119 (2007) (Order 890), at P 191.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 June 29, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13543 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P