UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

                             June 17, 2013

SUBJECT:	Supplemental Technical Support Document (TSD) - Insignificance
Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions for the Redesignation Request
and Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling,
WV-OH 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Area

FROM:	      /s/

Gregory Becoat

Environmental Scientist (3AP30)

TO:

Administrative Record for the Insignificance Findings for the Motor
Vehicle Emissions for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area

THRU:	                  /s/

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30)

I. Background

On March 8, 2012, the State of West Virginia formally submitted a
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for West Virginia Portion of
the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (hereafter the
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan).  The SIP included a request
for a finding of insignificance by EPA for motor vehicle emissions for
nitrogen oxides (NOx), direct particulate matter (PM), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2).

Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) to ensure that federally supported highway, transit
projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the
purpose of the State Implementation Plans (SIP).  The CAA requires
federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to “conform
to” the goals of SIP.  This means that such actions will not cause or
contribute to violations of a national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS); worsen the severity of an existing violation; or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.  Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).  Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with State air quality and transportation agencies, EPA,
FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that their metropolitan transportation
plans and TIPs conform to applicable SIPs.  This is typically determined
by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway
and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained in a SIP.

For MVEBs to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s
adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).  EPA’s adequacy
criteria are:  (1) the submitted control strategy implementation plan
was endorsed by the Governor or designee and was subject to a State
public hearing; (2) consultation among Federal, State, and local
agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided
to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed before the
control strategy implementation plan was submitted; (3) the MVEBs are
clearly identified and precisely quantified; (4) the MVEBs, when
considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent
with applicable requirements for maintenance; (5) the MVEBs are
consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the
control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan;
and (6) revisions to previously submitted maintenance plans explain and
document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control
measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to
established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including the
basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates of
vehicle miles traveled).

In certain instances, the Transportation Conformity Rule allows areas to
forgo establishment of a MVEB where it is demonstrated that the regional
motor vehicle emissions for a particular pollutant or precursor are an
insignificant contributor to the air quality problem in an area.  The
general criteria for insignificance determinations can be found in 40
CFR 93.109(f). Insignificance determinations are based on a number of
factors, including the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in the
context of the total SIP inventory; the current state of air quality as
determined by monitoring data for the relevant NAAQS; the absence of SIP
motor vehicle control measures; and the historical trends and future
projections of the growth of motor vehicle emissions.  EPA’s rationale
for providing for insignificance determinations is described in the July
1, 2004, revision to the Transportation Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004.
Specifically, the rationale is explained on page 40061 under the
subsection XXIII.B. entitled, “Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle
Emissions.”  Any insignificance determination under review of EPA is
subject to the adequacy and approval process for EPA's action on the
SIP.

II.  Administrative Requirements for Making Insignificance Findings

EPA has followed the process for reviewing the submitted SIP and
determining if an insignificance finding for Motor Vehicle Emissions is
warranted in accordance with the procedures listed in the January 2008
Conformity Regulations contained in 40 CFR 93.102(b) - “Geographical
applicability” and 40 CFR 93.118(f) - “Adequacy review process for
implementation plan submissions.”

III.  Evaluation of the Request for an Insignificance Finding for Motor
Vehicle Emissions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
the West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH  1997 PM2.5
Nonattainment Area Submitted by The West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection

In this TSD, EPA is evaluating the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection’s request for an insignificance finding for
motor vehicle emissions associated with the Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan contained in the submittal.  EPA is using the
evaluation criteria detailed in the Transportation Conformity Rule, 40
CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv), 93.102(b)(2)(v), 93.102(b)(3), and 93.118(e)4
through 93.118(e)5.  The evaluation is presented below.

Review of the Request for Insignificance Finding of Motor Vehicle
Emissions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West
Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

Transportation Conformity Rule

40 CFR Part 93, 93.118

Review Criteria

Was the Criterion Satisfied?  If Yes, How was this Criteria Satisfied?

93.102(b)(2)(iv)	Has the EPA and the State made a finding that NOx is an
insignificant contributor to the direct mobile PM emissions or does the
implementation plan fail to establish a NOx budget as part of the PM2.5
maintenance strategy?

	The State has requested that NOx be found an insignificant contributor
to the mobile PM emissions.  This request is based on the fact that
Onroad mobile source NOx constitutes less than twelve and a half percent
of the area’s total NOx emission in the 2015 and 2022 horizon years
due to continuing fleet turnover even with future vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) growth included in the emission projections.

93.102(b)(2)(v)	Has the EPA or State made a finding that Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) or Ammonia (NH3) as
precursors to be a significant contributor to the mobile PM emissions or
does the implementation plan  submission establish a  budget for VOCs,
SOx or (NH3) as part of a PM2.5  maintenance strategy?	Neither EPA nor
the State has made any findings that VOCs, SO2, or (NH3) is a
significant contributor to the PM2.5 mobile emissions, and therefore, it
has not been included in the SIP.  Onroad mobile source SO2 constitutes
less than 0.1% of the area’s total SO2 emissions in the 2015 and 2022
horizon years.

93.102(b)(3)

	Has the EPA or the State made a finding that direct PM is a significant
contributor to the PM mobile emissions or does the implementation plan
establish a budget that includes direct PM as part of a PM 2.5
maintenance strategy?

	The State has requested that direct PM be found an insignificant
contributor to the mobile PM emissions.  This request is based on the
fact that Onroad mobile source PM2.5 constitutes less than two and a
half percent of the area’s total PM2.5 emissions in the 2015 and 2022
horizon years due to continuing fleet turnover even with future VMT
growth included in the emission projections.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i)	Was the submitted revised plan endorsed by the
Governor (or his or her designee) and subject to a State public hearing?

	Yes.  The submitted Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan was
endorsed and submitted as a SIP revision by the Governor’s designee,
the Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection.  A public hearing on the SIP proposal was held on February
28, 2012.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)	Before the maintenance plan was submitted to EPA,
did consultation between federal, State and local agencies occur; was
full implementation plan documentation provided to EPA, and was EPA’s
stated concerns, if any, addressed?	Yes.  Consultation has occurred
among all required Federal, State, and local agencies.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)	Were the MVEBs clearly identified and precisely
quantified?	As there was a request for an insignificance finding, no
MVEBs were identified in the SIP.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)	Are the motor vehicle emissions, when considered
together with all other emission reductions, consistent with applicable
requirements for maintenance strategies?	EPA believes that motor vehicle
emissions can be declared insignificant contributors because in
comparing the motor vehicle emissions to the overall emissions
inventory, the motor vehicle emissions comprise only a small portion of
the over PM2.5 emissions for the nonattainment area and are projected to
continue to significantly decline due to fleet turnover.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)	Is the motor vehicle emissions consistent with and
clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in
the Plan?

	EPA believes that the motor vehicle emissions have clearly related to
the emissions inventory in the SIP submittal.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)	Revisions to previously submitted maintenance
plan: explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets
and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any
changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101 for definition);
and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related
to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).	There are
no revisions to the maintenance plan because this is the initial
redesignation request, along with the associated maintenance plan for
West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH Area.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5)	Did they provide and we review public comments and the
State’s responses to those comments with the submitted control
strategy SIP?	There were no comments on the SIP related to the proposed
insignificance finding request.

IV.  Conclusion

Based upon our review and evaluation of the motor vehicle emissions
contained in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West
Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,
EPA finds that the SIP submittal meets the criteria in the
transportation conformity rules for an insignificance finding for NOx,
PM2.5, and SO2 contribution from motor vehicles.  Weighing all the
factors for an insignificance finding, particularly the minor
contribution of mobile source PM2.5, and SO2, EPA has determined that
the PM2.5 and SO2 contribution from motor vehicles emissions to the
Annual PM2.5 pollution for the West Virginia portion of the
Nonattainment Area are insignificant.  With respect to transportation
conformity, the larger NOx contribution of less than twelve and a half
percent of the area’s total NOx emission in the 2015 and 2022 horizon
years requires further justification to request an insignificant
finding.  40 CFR 93.109(f) bases insignificance on emission percentages,
emission trends, and the effectiveness of the pollutant in forming PM.
For the Wheeling area, there is a significant emission decrease
projected for the highway sector and total emissions inventory in years
2008, 2015, and 2022.  Given the relatively small contribution of the
highway emissions to the total SIP inventory, highway emissions are not
likely to contribute significantly to local PM2.5.  Additionally, NOx
reductions are significantly less effective in reducing PM
concentrations than are reductions in direct PM and SO2.  Consequently,
NOx percent emission contribution may be higher than direct PM and SO2
without adversely affecting air quality.  Based on the analysis of local
historical trends and growth patterns in order to develop the long range
transportation plan and transportation improvement program for
transportation conformity purposes, there is no reason to expect highway
motor vehicle emissions growth that would lead to a violation of the
PM2.5 standard.  Although vehicle miles traveled increases, NOx
emissions decrease dramatically from 4505.4 tons/year in 2002 to 665.7
tons/year in 2030.  This demonstrates that highway emissions will remain
insignificant in the future.  Upon review of the further justification
for requesting an insignificant finding for NOx, EPA has determined that
NOx contribution from motor vehicles emissions to the Annual PM2.5
pollution for the West Virginia portion of the Nonattainment Area is
insignificant.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40666-40668]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67342; File No. SR-BX-2012-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program

July 3, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 28, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX is filing with the Commission a proposal to extend through
December 31, 2012, the Penny Pilot Program in options classes in
certain issues (``Penny Pilot'' or ``Pilot'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Penny Pilot was established in June 2012. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June 26, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030)
(order approving BX option rules and establishing Penny Pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act
\5\ to the extent needed for timely industry-wide implementation of the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at BX's principal office, 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 Exchange 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The

Exchange 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Chapter VI, Section 5 to
extend the Penny Pilot through December 31, 2012.
    For a pilot period scheduled to expire on June 30, 2012, the Penny
Pilot allows certain options to be quoted and traded on the Exchange in
minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such options with a price
of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of $0.05 for all series
in such options with a price of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the
PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded
Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''),
however, are quoted and traded in minimum increments of $0.01 for all
series regardless of the price.
    The Exchange believes that the Penny Pilot is a very successful and
efficacious pricing program that is similar to penny pilot programs of
other options exchanges,\6\ and is beneficial to traders, investors,
and public customers. The Exchange desires to extend its Penny Pilot.
This proposal allows the Penny Pilot to continue in its current format
for six months through December 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for example, BATS, CBOE, ISE, NYSE Arca, Phlx, and NOM
(the ``other options exchanges''). Like BX, the other options
exchanges are proposing to extend their penny pilot programs through
December 31, 2012. The Exchange notes that on or about July 3, 2012,
it intends to add penny pilot issues that will be added by the other
options exchanges to replace any pilot issues that have been
delisted on the other options exchanges. See, for example, Phlx-
2012-86 and NASDAQ-2012-075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by extending the Penny Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Penny Pilot is a very successful and
efficacious pricing program that is beneficial to traders, investors,
and public customers. This proposal would allow the Exchange's Penny
Pilot to continue in its current format through December 31, 2012,
similarly to the penny pilot programs of other options exchanges.

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 Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\13\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program.\15\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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 the 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
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44). See
also supra note 4.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, 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-BX-2012-046 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-BX-2012-046. 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, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the 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-BX-2012-046 and should be submitted on
or before July 31, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16764 Filed 7-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


#THIS SCRIPT CALCULATES THE PROBABILITY THAT A SYSTEM WILL HAVE A SOURCE CHANGE  #
#FROM GROUNDWATER TO SURFACE WATER AND VICE VERSA                                #
#CREATED BY TOM BENEKE (THE CADMUS GROUP) 07/02/2018							 #
##################################################################################

#import libraries
library(plyr)
library(stringr)

#set working directory
setwd("C:/Users/thomas.beneke/Desktop/ChangeSourceTreatment_05302018 - NTNCWS")

#read in source data
#this is a CSV version of Laura's "tblWSF-Treat" table in the "ChangeInSource-QA" Access database
wsf.df <- read.csv("tblWSF-Treat.csv", stringsAsFactors=FALSE, header=FALSE)
colnames(wsf.df) <- c("PWSID","FacilityID","IsSourceInd","Active_YN","FacilityDeadline","DeactiveDate","FacilityType","WaterType","Availability",
						"SellerPWSID","SellerTreatment","TreatProcess","TreatObj","TreatID","TreatCode","TreatPID","WaterTypeCode","ReportedYear","SourceCode")

#read in community water system table
#this is a CSV version of Laura's "tblC_NTNC" table in the "ChangeInSource-QA" Access database
cws.df <- read.csv("tblC_NTNC.csv", stringsAsFactors=FALSE, header=TRUE)
cws.df$PWSID <- cws.df$PWS.ID

#join cws data to wsf dataframe & remove unnecessary columns
wsf.cws <- join(wsf.df, cws.df, by=c('PWSID'), type='left', match='all')
wsf.cws <- wsf.cws[,c("PWSID","FacilityID","PWS.Type","CCT_YN","GW.or.SW","Size.Category","IsSourceInd","ReportedYear","SourceCode")]

#select only community water systems and add "points" field
#then subset for only systems in the current CWS inventory
wsf.cws.ind <- wsf.cws[wsf.cws$PWS.Type == "Non-Transient non-community system" & wsf.cws$IsSourceInd == "Y" & is.na(wsf.cws$PWS.Type) == FALSE,]
wsf.cws.ind <- wsf.cws.ind[wsf.cws.ind$PWSID %in% cws.df$PWSID == TRUE,]
wsf.cws.ind$Points <- 1
#subset so that only grabs unique facilities
wsf.cws.ind <- wsf.cws.ind[duplicated(wsf.cws.ind)==FALSE,]
#add unique identifier for PWSID - Facility combination
wsf.cws.ind$PWSID_FAC <- paste0(wsf.cws.ind$PWSID,"_",wsf.cws.ind$FacilityID)
wsf.cws.ind$CCT_YN[wsf.cws.ind$CCT_YN == 1] <- "Y"
wsf.cws.ind$CCT_YN[wsf.cws.ind$CCT_YN == 0] <- "N"

#aggregate counts by PWSID, source type, and year, for each year
yr13 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID_FAC + SourceCode + ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws.ind[wsf.cws.ind$ReportedYear == 2013,], "sum")
yr14 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID_FAC + SourceCode + ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws.ind[wsf.cws.ind$ReportedYear == 2014,], "sum")
yr15 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID_FAC + SourceCode+ ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws.ind[wsf.cws.ind$ReportedYear == 2015,], "sum")
yr16 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID_FAC + SourceCode+ ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws.ind[wsf.cws.ind$ReportedYear == 2016,], "sum")

#create empty dataframe to append counts by year to
pws <- data.frame(Obj_ID = seq(1:length(unique(wsf.cws.ind$PWSID_FAC))),PWSID_FAC = unique(wsf.cws.ind$PWSID_FAC))

pws$yr13 <- "-"
pws$yr14 <- "-"
pws$yr15 <- "-"
pws$yr16 <- "-"

#MATCH GWCA
pws$yr13[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr13$PWSID_FAC[yr13$SourceCode == "GWCA"]==TRUE] <- "GWCA"
pws$yr14[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr14$PWSID_FAC[yr14$SourceCode == "GWCA"]==TRUE] <- "GWCA"
pws$yr15[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr15$PWSID_FAC[yr15$SourceCode == "GWCA"]==TRUE] <- "GWCA"
pws$yr16[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr16$PWSID_FAC[yr16$SourceCode == "GWCA"]==TRUE] <- "GWCA"
#MATCH GWA
pws$yr13[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr13$PWSID_FAC[yr13$SourceCode == "GWA"]==TRUE] <- "GWA"
pws$yr14[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr14$PWSID_FAC[yr14$SourceCode == "GWA"]==TRUE] <- "GWA"
pws$yr15[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr15$PWSID_FAC[yr15$SourceCode == "GWA"]==TRUE] <- "GWA"
pws$yr16[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr16$PWSID_FAC[yr16$SourceCode == "GWA"]==TRUE] <- "GWA"
#MATCH GUA
pws$yr13[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr13$PWSID_FAC[yr13$SourceCode == "GUA"]==TRUE] <- "GUA"
pws$yr14[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr14$PWSID_FAC[yr14$SourceCode == "GUA"]==TRUE] <- "GUA"
pws$yr15[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr15$PWSID_FAC[yr15$SourceCode == "GUA"]==TRUE] <- "GUA"
pws$yr16[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr16$PWSID_FAC[yr16$SourceCode == "GUA"]==TRUE] <- "GUA"
#MATCH SWA
pws$yr13[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr13$PWSID_FAC[yr13$SourceCode == "SWA"]==TRUE] <- "SWA"
pws$yr14[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr14$PWSID_FAC[yr14$SourceCode == "SWA"]==TRUE] <- "SWA"
pws$yr15[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr15$PWSID_FAC[yr15$SourceCode == "SWA"]==TRUE] <- "SWA"
pws$yr16[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr16$PWSID_FAC[yr16$SourceCode == "SWA"]==TRUE] <- "SWA"
#MATCH SWCA
pws$yr13[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr13$PWSID_FAC[yr13$SourceCode == "SWCA"]==TRUE] <- "SWCA"
pws$yr14[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr14$PWSID_FAC[yr14$SourceCode == "SWCA"]==TRUE] <- "SWCA"
pws$yr15[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr15$PWSID_FAC[yr15$SourceCode == "SWCA"]==TRUE] <- "SWCA"
pws$yr16[pws$PWSID_FAC %in% yr16$PWSID_FAC[yr16$SourceCode == "SWCA"]==TRUE] <- "SWCA"

#FLAG ROWS THAT CHANGE GWCA/SWCA TO GWA/GUA/SWA
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE <- 0
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr14 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr15 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr16 == "GWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr14 == "GWA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr15 == "GWA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr16 == "GWA"]<- 1
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "GUA" & pws$yr14 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GUA" & pws$yr15 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GUA" & pws$yr16 == "GWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr14 == "GUA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr15 == "GUA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr16 == "GUA"]<- 1
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr14 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr15 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr16 == "GWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr14 == "SWA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr15 == "SWA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr16 == "SWA"]<- 1
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr14 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr15 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr16 == "SWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr14 == "GWA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr15 == "GWA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr16 == "GWA"]<- 1
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "GUA" & pws$yr14 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GUA" & pws$yr15 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GUA" & pws$yr16 == "SWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr14 == "GUA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr15 == "GUA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr16 == "GUA"]<- 1
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr14 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr15 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr16 == "SWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr14 == "SWA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr15 == "SWA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr16 == "SWA"]<- 1

#FLAG ROWS THAT CHANGE GWA TO SWA AND VICE VERSA
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr14 == "SWA"|pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr15 == "SWA"|pws$yr13 == "GWA" & pws$yr16 == "SWA"|
					pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr14 == "GWA"|pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr15 == "GWA"|pws$yr13 == "SWA" & pws$yr16 == "GWA"]<- 1

#FLAG ROWS THAT CHANGE GWCA TO SWCA AND VICE VERSA
pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE[pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr14 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr15 == "SWCA"|pws$yr13 == "GWCA" & pws$yr16 == "SWCA"|
					pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr14 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr15 == "GWCA"|pws$yr13 == "SWCA" & pws$yr16 == "GWCA"]<- 2

#write a csv to manually QA that the source changes were flagged correctly
write.csv(pws, "SourceChanges_070218.csv", row.names=FALSE)

#get counts of unique PWSs with a source change, one list for certain changes and one list for those changing from GWCA to SWCA or vice versa
pws.ids.1 <- length(unique(as.character(lapply(strsplit(as.character(pws$PWSID_FAC[pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE==1]), split="_"),tail, n=1))))
pws.ids.2 <- length(unique(as.character(lapply(strsplit(as.character(pws$PWSID_FAC[pws$FLAG_SC_CHANGE==2]), split="_"),tail, n=1))))


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 74199-74200]
[DOCID:fr05de08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0052]

The Cadmium in General Industry 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 comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB
approval of the information collection requirements contained in the
Cadmium in General Industry Standard (29 CFR 1910.1027).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 3, 2009.

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 three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0052,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 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 OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0052). 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 through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Jamaa Hill at the
address below to obtain a copy of the Information Collection Request
(ICR).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (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 Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the Cadmium in
General Industry Standard protect employees from the adverse health
effects that may result from occupational exposure to cadmium. The
major information collection requirements in the Standard include
conducting employee exposure monitoring, notifying employees of their
cadmium exposures, implementing a written compliance program,
implementing medical surveillance of employees, providing examining
physicians with specific information, ensuring that employees receive a
copy of their medical surveillance results, maintaining employees'
exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records for specific
periods, and providing access to these records by OSHA, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the employee who is the
subject of the records, the employee's representative, and other
designated parties.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection 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 information collection 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

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Cadmium in General Industry
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1027). OSHA is proposing to decrease its current
existing burden hour estimate from 121,177 hours to 92,259 hours, for a
total decrease of 28,918 hours. Based upon a review of new data, the
Agency reduced the number of plants and employees potentially exposed
to cadmium. Additionally, while there was an increase in the cost of
medical examinations, this was offset by a reduction in the number of
employees receiving medical examinations which led to an overall cost
decrease of $1,546,815, from $6,191,000 to $4,644,185.
    The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to
This notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1027).
    OMB Number: 1218-0185.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 50,862.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from 5 minutes
(.08 hour) to maintain records to 1.67 hours to complete a medical
examination.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 92,259 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $4,644,185.

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 (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0052). 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<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers 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 through 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 through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Thomas M. Stohler, Acting 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. 5-2007
(72 FR 31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of November 2008.
Thomas M. Stohler,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-28788 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


                             Supporting Statement
                                     for
                             Great Lakes Pilotage

                          OMB CONTROL No.:  1625-0086
               COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  CG-4509 and Instruction

A.      Justification.

This collection of information relating to the Rate-making requirements is required pursuant to 46 CFR parts 401 and 404 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

   1. Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

         Pursuant to 46 CFR part 404, the Director of the Great Lakes Pilotage is required to set pilotage rates on the Great Lakes.   In meeting this requirement, the Director requires that pilot associations provide data relating to bridge hours; vessel delay, detention, cancellation, and movage; pilot travel; revenues; and pilot availability.   Presently this data is being recorded and provided to the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage via hard copy source forms that each pilot association prepares immediately following each completed pilot assignment.  Copies of the source forms are mailed to the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage on a monthly basis.  Pilot availability is reported monthly on a separate form.  In an effort to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the data collection and to utilize enhanced data collection technology, the Director mandated the use of electronic data collection.

         In March 2006, the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage commenced its use of electronic data collection with the implementation of the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System software.   A web based system, it provides the three U.S. pilot associations electronic capabilities in entering and storing pilotage data relating to bridge hours; vessel delay, detention, cancellation, and movage; pilot travel; revenues; and pilot availability.   This software also makes this data readily available and retrievable by the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage for use in the course of daily operational oversight and rate-making.

         Additionally, the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage oversees pilot registration in accordance with 46 CFR part 401.  To meet these requirements, the office collects mariner credentialing information to verify eligibility for registration as a Great Lakes Registered Pilot.

   2. By whom, how and for what purpose the information is to be used.

         The Director uses the data stored in the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System and on form CG-4509 to carry out operational and rate making oversight of pilotage activities on the Great Lakes.

   3. Considerations of the use of improved technology.

         The Office of Great Lakes Pilotage has commenced electronic tracking of vessels and pilot assignments on the Great Lakes using real time data via the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System.  This system enables the program to accurately and quickly answer queries from pilots, industry, or the general public regarding operations and/or retrieve information that previously was not always readily available.  Additionally, the use of the pilotage software program enables the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage to access and view all foreign vessel traffic in the Great Lakes and to determine pilot availability at any given time.  The three U.S. pilots association have unlimited access to the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System through the use of a username and secured passwords.  The Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System (GLEPMS) uses the Klein Systems Group "KleinPilot" software (http://www.kleinsystems.com/default.asp?parent=129&view=192&showsub=129) specifically tailored to meet the needs and business practices of each of the three Great Lakes Pilot Associations and provides real-time pilotage data and information to users.  The application does not have a standalone web address but rather consists of an online database accessed through a specific program.  Furthermore, the system has added firewall security measures that allow the host server to recognize only those remote servers with pre-registered IP addresses.  The five (5) screen shots named below are provided as separate files to indicate the capabilities of the system:

         Screen Shot No. 1  -  Vessel Table
         Screen Shot No.2  -  Vessel Scheduling and Dispatch with Window of Vessel Specifics
   Screen Shot No.3  -  Summary Dispatch Report
         Screen Shot No. 4  -  Map of the Great Lakes with Real Time Location of Vessels and Job Status Window
   Screen Shot No. 5  -  Pilot Rotation Window

         Form CG-4509 will be posted to the internet for easy access.  It is a fillable pdf that can be printed, signed and scanned to the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage via a dedicated email address (GreatLakesPilotage@uscg.mil).

   4. Efforts to identify duplication.  Why similar information available cannot be used.

         The database information is not collected in any form, and therefore is not duplicated elsewhere.  The Office of Great Lakes Pilotage is currently discussing elimination of CG-4509 with the National Maritime Center after the necessary information is moved to the CG-719B.  However, the specific information captured on the CG-4509 is not captured on any form currently used by the National Maritime Center.

   5. Methods used to minimize the burdens of small business if involved.

         To minimize the burden of this collection, the three U.S. pilot associations have been provided on site training on the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System and will be provided follow-on training and site-visits to ensure continued proficiency with the pilot software program.  The Coast Guard has set up a dedicated email for the CG-4509 and will continue to respond to any inquiries regarding the form or its instructions.

   6. Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted less frequently.

         The Coast Guard pilotage regulations require annual reviews of pilotage rates and the creation of a new rate at least once every five years, or sooner, if the annual review shows a need.  To facilitate this process, the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage must rely on the pilot associations to submit timely and accurate data that includes financial reports; bridge hours; vessel delay, detention, cancellation, and movage; pilot travel; revenues; and pilot availability.  From an operational standpoint, quick access of the pilotage data on a daily basis allows the Director to make accurate assessments and informed decisions on pilotage activities on the Great Lakes immediately.  Similarly, from a rate making standpoint, immediate entry, access, and retrieval of the pilotage data allows the Office to calculate and make proper adjustments to pilotage rates as required.
         The CG-4509 must be collected in a timely manner to ensure that Great Lakes Registered Pilots and mariners interested in becoming certified as such meet the registration requirements specified in 46 CFR part 401.

   7. Special Collection Circumstances.

         The Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System provides the three U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations the ability to enter bridge hour related data which is required by regulations and which in turn enables the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage to make decisions on the need for rate adjustments.  The Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System also allows the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage to access foreign vessel traffic and pilot assignment data that its Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, maintains.  Similarly, the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority has similar access capability to view U.S. foreign vessel traffic and pilot assignments only.

   8. Consultation.

         A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain public comment on this collection.

   9. Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

         There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information collection.

   10. Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

         The data that is collected from the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System is required in order for the Director to determine whether rate adjustments are needed.   This data is public data and therefore there are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection.

         Form CG-4509, in accordance with the Privacy Act, manages public disclosure under the Great Lakes Registered Pilot Eligibility System of Records, 73 Fed. REg. 245 (December 19, 2008).

   11. Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature (e.g. sexual behavior, attitudes, religious beliefs, other private information).

         There are no questions of sensitive nature.

   12. Estimate of the hour burden of collection of information.

         There is an added burden of 1 hour respecting the collection of information because of the inclusion of CG-4509 in this collection.   For the added form, there are estimated to be six respondents per year providing one response each (at 10 minutes each) for a total of one annual burden hour.  The Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System software provides the three U.S. pilot associations an electronic capability to collect data that, up until now, has been conducted on a manual basis.  There was no standardization of process amongst the three U.S. pilot associations in the collection and maintenance of this information.   The Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System standardizes this process and transfers the process from a manual system to an electronic system.

         The original estimate of hour burden remains the same as noted under the existing and currently approved OMB 1625-0086.  Under this OMB 1625-0086 approval, the original hour burden was arrived at as follows:

            "There are three respondents who might provide a maximum of 60 responses per year at an average time of .3 hours per response, for a total of 18 hours per year for the industry.  The hour burden for each of the three respondents is expected to be the same so each respondent is expected to have 6 hour yearly.  The total annual cost burden to industry is estimated to be $900, which is calculated by multiplying $50 (the average hourly salary of a mid-level independent accountant) by the 18 hours total hour burden for the industry."

         To further clarify, there are approximately three individuals who might provide responses for each association for the electronic system.  Thus, there might be as many as nine individual respondents for the electronic system.  This is in addition to the six new respondents for the added form.  Overall, we expect the association burden (the three respondents in the initial approval) to remain the same, with the exception of the new form.  The increase in the one hour burden and six respondents is for Great Lakes Registered Pilots and members of the public interested in becoming registered as such to complete CG-4509.  This results in an increase of $44.57 (the 75[th] percentile hourly wage for captains, mates and pilots of water vessels).  The new total cost is $944.57 and the new total annual burden is 19 hours.

   13. Estimate of total annualized capital and start-up cost.

         The Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System is being provided to the three U.S. Great Lakes Pilot associations at no cost to the associations with respect to equipment, software, and training.  These expenses are absorbed by the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage located at Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC.   Because the management system is web-based, the three U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations use their existing computer equipment to execute the management system program.    There are no record keeping, capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

   14. Estimate of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

         Annualized cost, minus the initial cost of system acquisition of $150,000, of the Great Lakes Pilotage Electronic Management System is estimated at $25,000.   This amount is an agreed upon figure listed in the  performance contract between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Klein Systems Group, and it covers the cost of server support of 24 hours a day and maintenance related to the upkeep of the system.

   15. Explain the reasons for any program changes, or adjustments.

         The estimated annual burden has increased by 1 hour to reflect the inclusion of CG-4509 in this collection.  This form is the document through which current and prospective pilots communicate their intent to seek or renew pilotage registration on the Great Lakes.  Previously, this form was not aligned with any active collection of information. The Coast Guard has modernized this form and allowed it to be filled out electronically and emailed to the Coast Guard to expedite processing time and ease the burden of completion on the current and prospective pilot community.

   16. Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

   This information collection will not be published for statistical purposes.

   17. Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

         The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of this information collection.

   18. Exception to the certification statement.

         USCG does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

B.      Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

                  This information collection does not employ statistical methods.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3564-3566]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0042; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-010-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB
340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes Modified in Accordance With
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00224WI-D, ST00146WI-D, or
SA984GL-D

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/
SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The first supplemental NPRM would have
required inspecting the fuselage surface for corrosion and cracking
behind the external adapter plate of the antennae installation, and
repair if necessary. The first supplemental NPRM resulted from a report
of a crack found behind the external adapter plate of the antennae
during inspection. Similar cracking was found on two additional
airplanes, and

extensive corrosion was found on one airplane. This action revises the
first supplemental NPRM by correcting an STC number, which would expand
the applicability of the first supplemental NPRM. We are proposing this
second supplemental NPRM to detect and correct corrosion and cracking
behind the external adapter plate of the antennae of certain damage-
tolerant structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity
and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by March 7,
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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas
67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0042;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-010-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

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the
``first supplemental NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an
airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab
Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. That
first supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August
23, 2010 (75 FR 51696). That first supplemental NPRM proposed to
require inspecting the fuselage surface for corrosion and cracking
behind the external adapter plate of the antennae installation, and
repair if necessary.

Actions Since First Supplemental NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the first supplemental NPRM, we have determined
that STC number SA00224WI-D, identified in the applicability of the
first supplemental NPRM, is an incorrect STC number; the correct number
is ST00224WI-D. We have corrected this error, which expands the
airplanes affected by the first supplemental NPRM.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the first
supplemental NPRM. We received no comments on that NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this second supplemental NPRM because we evaluated
all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and
is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs. The change described above expands the scope of the first
supplemental NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary
to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this second supplemental NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This second supplemental NPRM would retain all the requirements in
the first supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 201 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 4 work hours
per airplane, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators
is $68,340, or $340 per airplane.

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), and
    (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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 AD:

Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Docket No. FAA-2010-0042; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-010-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this AD, that have been modified in accordance with
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00224WI-D, ST00146WI-D, or
SA984GL-D.
    (1) Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, serial numbers 004
through 159 inclusive.
    (2) Model SAAB 340B airplanes, serial numbers 160 through 459
inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of a crack found behind the
external adapter plate of the antennae during inspection. Similar
cracking was found on two additional airplanes, and extensive
corrosion was found on one airplane. The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion
and cracking behind the external adapter plate of the antennae of
certain damage-tolerant structure, which could result in reduced
structural integrity and consequent rapid depressurization of the
airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified.

Inspection/Corrective Actions

    (g) Within 600 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD: Remove the external adapter plate of the antennae installation
and do a general visual inspection of the fuselage surface for
corrosion and cracking behind the external adapter plate of the
antennae installation. If any corrosion or cracking is found, repair
before further flight. If no corrosion or cracking is found, before
further flight, ensure that proper corrosion protection has been
applied before reinstalling the adapter plate. Do all the actions
required by this paragraph in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

    Note 1:  For the purposes of this AD, a general visual
inspection is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure,
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be
necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection
area. This level of inspection is made under normally available
lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight,
or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

Reporting Requirement

    (h) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the positive findings of the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Send the report to
the Manager, Wichita ACO. The report must contain, at a minimum, the
inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the
airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles and flight
hours on the airplane since installation of the STC. Under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.
    (3) A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Special Flight Permit

    (i) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location
where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, but
concurrence by the Manager, Wichita ACO, FAA, is required prior to
issuance of the special flight permit.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: William Griffith,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita ACO,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas
67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on January 12, 2011.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-1118 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27218-27219]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Number: EG20-143-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Wind Project III, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Cimarron Bend Wind Project III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5322.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

    Docket Number: EG20-144-000.
    Applicants: Aurora Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Aurora Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5327.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/2.

    Docket Number: EG20-145-000.
    Applicants: Taygete Energy Project, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Taygete Energy Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5357.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

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

    Docket Number: ER19-1902-002.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: ER19-1902 Compliance Filing to be
effective 5/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER19-2376-001.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: ER19-1902 Compliance Filing to be
effective 5/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1436-001; ER20-1437-001; ER20-1438-001; ER20-
879-001.
    Applicants: Energy Harbor LLC, Energy Harbor Generation LLC, Energy
Harbor Nuclear Generation LLC, Pleasants LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Energy Harbor LLC,
et al.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5486.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1681-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Amendment of ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4511; Queue No. AB1-127 to be effective 7/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1724-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-04-30_Regional Cost
Allocation Filing to be effective 7/29/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5333.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1725-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NTTG Funding Agreement
Termination to be effective 4/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5363.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1726-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
Mississippi, LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Annual Informational Filing regarding Prepaid Pension
Cost and Accrued Pension Cost of Entergy Arkansas, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5455.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1727-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
Mississippi, LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Post-Retirement Benefits Other than Pensions for 2019
Test Year of Entergy Arkansas, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5461.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1729-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Master JUA with
Prairie Energy to be effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1730-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: RS 253--Notice of Termination of
NTTG Funding Agreement to be effective 4/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1731-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Membership Agreement
Amendments for Roughrider Electric Cooperative, Inc. to be effective 4/
30/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1732-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-05-01_SA 3028 Ameren
IL--Prairie Power Project#26 SREC-N of Fairview, IL to be effective 7/
1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1733-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment S (GPCo) Updated
Depreciation Rates Filing 2020 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1734-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 864 OATT Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1735-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 864 TFCAT and Related
Gulf TFCAT Service Agreements Compliance Filing to be effective 1/27/
2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1736-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Compliance filing: Changes to Attachment J--Formula
Rates per Order No. 864 to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1737-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1st Quarterly 2020 Revisions
to OA, Sch. 12 and RAA, Sch. 17 Members List to be effective 3/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1738-000.
    Applicants: City of Anaheim, California.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: City of Anaheim TO Tariff
and TRR Revisions to be effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1739-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: ATSI submits Revisions to PJM
Tariff, Att. H-21 re: Order 864 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Number: ER20-1740-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits Revisions to
OATT, Att. H-21 and Att. II to be effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

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

    Docket Number: ES20-33-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities, et al. of The Empire District
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5456.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/20.

    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: May 1, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09757 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P