[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58707-58708]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-4-000]

Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization; Vector Pipeline,
L.P.

    Take notice that on October 15, 2019, Vector Pipeline, L.P.
(Vector) Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed
a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act and its blanket
certificate issued in Docket No.

CP98-135-000 for authorization to construct and operate a delivery
lateral consisting of approximately 1.24 miles of 24-inch diameter
pipeline located in St. Clair County, Michigan. Specifically, Vector
proposes to construct the lateral to connect its existing system to a
new 1,100 Megawatts natural gas-fired electric generating facility
being constructed by DTE Electric Company in St. Clair County,
Michigan. Vector states that is has designed the proposed facilities
with up to a maximum capacity of 525,000 Dth/d to accommodate this load
and a possible future expansion of the plant. The total cost of this
Project is approximately $21.5 million, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed Ms. Amy
S. Bruhn, Manager, Regulatory and Administration, Vector Pipeline, LLC,
the General Partner of Vector Pipeline L.P.; 38705 Seven Mile Road,
Suite 490, Livonia, Michigan 48152, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (734)
exception occurred on : 2019-23841.htm
exception occurred on : 2019-23841.htm
462-0231, or email: pipeline.com">[email protected]pipeline.com.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission, and will not have the right to
seek court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to
file electronically should submit original and 3 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: October 25, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23841 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8389-8391]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7489; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-20]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Enid Vance AFB, OK; Enid
Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK; and Enid, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal descriptions of Class E surface
area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension in the
Enid, OK, area eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time
status at Vance AFB, and Enid Woodring Municipal Airport. This action
also updates the geographic coordinates of Vance AFB, Woodring
Municipal Airport, and the Vance VHF Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) listed for Class D and Class E airspace. This is an
administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Vance AFB, Enid, OK, and Woodring
Municipal Airport, Enid, OK.

History

    In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Vance
AFB, and Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK, as published in FAA
Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not
require part time status. This is an administrative change removing the
part time NOTAM information from the legal description for the
airports, and also brings current the airport reference point and
NAVAID coordinates.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000,
6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August
6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, ``This Class E
airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established
in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.'' from the regulatory text of the Class E surface area
airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D,
at Vance AFB, Enid, OK, and Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK.
Additionally, the geographic coordinates of Vance AFB, Woodring
Municipal Airport, and the Vance VORTAC are updated for the Class D and
Class E airspace areas listed in this rule to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This is an administrative change amending the description for Vance
AFB and Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK, to be in concert with the
FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or
operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW OK D Enid Vance AFB, OK [Amended]

Enid, Vance AFB, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]20'22'' N., long. 97[deg]55'02'' W.)
Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'33'' N., long. 97[deg]47'22'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, and within a
4.1-mile radius of Woodring Municipal Airport; excluding that
portion of airspace east of long. 97[deg]51'01'' W., when the Enid,
Woodring Municipal Airport, OK, Class D airspace area is in effect.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

ASW OK D Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK [Amended]

Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'33'' N., long. 97[deg]47'22'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Woodring Municipal
Airport; excluding that portion of airspace west of long.
97[deg]51'01'' W. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASW OK E2 Enid, OK [Amended]

Enid, Vance AFB, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]20'22'' N., long. 97[deg]55'02'' W.)
Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'33'' N., long. 97[deg]47'22'' W.)
Within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, and within a 4.1-mile radius
of Woodring Municipal Airport.

6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D
or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASW OK E4 Enid Vance AFB, OK [Amended]

Enid, Vance AFB, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]20'22'' N., long. 97[deg]55'02'' W.)
Vance VORTAC
    (lat. 36[deg]20'42'' N., long. 97[deg]55'07'' W.)
Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'33'' N., long. 97[deg]47'22'' W.)
Woodring VOR/DME
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'26'' N., long. 97[deg]47'17'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles
each side of the 188[deg] radial of the Vance VORTAC extending from
the 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB to 6.1 miles south of the airport,
and within 2.1 miles each side of the 355[deg] radial of the
Woodring VOR/DME extending from the 4.1-mile radius of Woodring
Municipal Airport to 5.8 miles north of the airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 185[deg] radial extending from the 4.1-mile
radius of Woodring Municipal Airport to 5.5 miles south of the
airport; excluding that portion of airspace east of

long. 97[deg]51'01'' W., when the Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport,
OK, Class E airspace area is in effect.

ASW OK E4 Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK [Amended]

Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'33'' N., long. 97[deg]47'22'' W.)
Woodring VOR/DME
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'26''; N., long. 97[deg]47'17'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.1 miles
each side of the 355[deg] radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending
from the 4.1-mile radius of Woodring Municipal Airport to 5.8 miles
north of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 185[deg]
radial of the VOR/DME extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the
airport to 5.5 miles south of the airport; excluding that portion of
airspace west of long. 97[deg]51'01'' W.

6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Enid, OK [Amended]

Enid, Vance AFB, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]20'22'' N., long. 97[deg]55'02'' W.)
Enid, Woodring Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'33'' N., long. 97[deg]47'22'' W.)
Woodring VOR/DME
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'26'' N., long. 97[deg]47'17'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 8.7 miles east and west of Vance AFB extending to 15.2 miles
north and south of Vance AFB, and within a 6.6-mile radius of
Woodring Municipal Airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the
355[deg] radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending from the 6.6-mile
radius to 7.5 miles north of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each
side of the 185[deg] radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending from
the 6.6-mile radius to 7.3 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 8, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-03365 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22546-22547]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0295]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight (Sinepatuxent)
Bay, Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US 50 (Harry W. Kelly Memorial)
Bridge across the Isle of Wight (Sinepatuxent) Bay, mile 0.5, at Ocean
City, MD. The deviation is necessary to accommodate participants of the
2016 ``Island 2 Island'' Half Marathon.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on
Saturday, April 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0295] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6557, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The OC Tri-Running Sports, on behalf of the
Maryland State Highway Administration, who owns the US 50 (Harry W.
Kelly Memorial) Bridge has requested a temporary deviation from the
current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.559, to facilitate
the 2016 ``Island 2 Island'' Half Marathon.
    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be closed to
navigation from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on April 30, 2016. The closure has
been requested to ensure the safety of the increased volumes of runners
and spectators that will be participating in the ``Island 2 Island''
Half Marathon on April 30, 2016.
    The bridge is a Double Bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance
in the closed position of 13 feet above mean high water. Vessels able
to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime.
The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternative route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 12, 2016.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-08896 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70865-70866]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0002; FRL-9918-85]

SFIREG Full Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
(AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), Full
Committee will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on December 8, 2014 and
ending December 9, 2014. This notice announces the location and times
for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, December 8, 2014 from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday, December 9, 2014.
    To request accommodation for a disability, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least
10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EPA. One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.) 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington VA. 1st Floor South Conference Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Kendall, Field and External
Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 7506P., NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (703) 305-
5884; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Grier Stayton, SFIREG
Executive Secretary, P.O. Box 466, Milford DE 19963; telephone number
(302) 422-8152; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: Grier Stayton at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are
interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any
discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues
related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and
insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and
encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
    Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
(FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as
any Non-Government Organization.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2014-0002 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the
Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in
the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West
William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Tentative Agenda Topics

    1. Discussion of State Pollinator Plans.
    2. Update on AAPCO Pollinator Committee Progress.
    3. Discussion on adjusting inspection time allocations in
Inspection Guidance.
    4. Discuss process for obtaining Federal credentials.
    5. Update on Worker Protection Standard and Certification Rule
Changes.

    6. State Lead Agency primacy concerns with EPA inspections.
    7. Program to Reduce Pesticide Drift and Protect People, Wildlife
and the Environment.
    8. Discussion on Enlist Duo registration and labeling.
    9. Update on FIFRA project officer training.
    10. Reports from regional pre-SFIREG meetings.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the
meeting without further notification.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 4, 2014.
Jaqueline E. Mosby,
Director, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-28162 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 26758]
[DOCID:fr08my06-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-66-000]

Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Declaratory Order

May 1, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2006, Cincinnati Gas and Electric
Company d/b/a/ Duke EnergyOhio, et at. submitted a request that the
Commission issue a declaratory order finding that the payment of
dividends described in this petition does not violate section 305(a) of
the Federal Power Act.
    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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 May 11, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6899 Filed 5-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KRISTA L. EDWARDS

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

- - JANUARY 31, 2008 - -

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici, members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the safety programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and our experience in
overseeing the commercial transportation of carbon dioxide.

As the Committee considers future requirements for carbon capture and
sequestration, I am pleased to confirm that large volumes of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are shipped safely in the U.S. today, including by
pipeline. PHMSA's existing programs and standards governing CO2
transportation provide effective protection to life and property, with
due regard for the efficiency and performance of the transportation
system.

As the DOT agency with jurisdiction over the movement of hazardous
materials by all transportation modes, PHMSA has extensive experience
managing the risks of compressed CO2, in each of its physical states:
gas, liquid, and solid (dry ice). Unlike natural gas and other gases
regulated as hazardous materials, CO2 is noncombustible and nontoxic. A
colorless, odorless by-product of human respiration, CO2 is present
naturally in the environment and, at normal atmospheric levels, is vital
to plant life and poses no immediate hazard to people or animals. In
higher concentrations, as when CO2 is contained for transport or
storage, exposure to CO2 can cause respiratory problems, including
suffocation. CO2 reaches its liquid state at combinations of high
pressure and low temperature. Both variables affect the consequence of a
release of liquefied CO2 in each case depending on the proximity of
people and the location and surrounding conditions. In a remote,
unpopulated area, even a large release of liquefied CO2 will vaporize
harmlessly into the atmosphere and is unlikely to cause serious injury.
By contrast, a large, sudden release of liquefied CO2 could have
catastrophic consequences in a populated area. Because it is heavier
than air, compressed CO2 tends to pool near the ground, displacing all
oxygen, and form a vapor cloud as it dissipates.

Because of these properties when compressed and/or in high
concentrations, CO2 has long been considered a hazardous material
subject to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws, 49 U.S.C. 5101
et seq., and DOT's implementing regulations, 49 C.F.R. parts 171-180,
governing transportation by air, rail, highway, and water. PHMSA's
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) prescribe a comprehensive risk
management framework for CO2 transport, covering classification,
packaging, handling, and hazard communication (shipping documentation
and labeling). The packaging standards for CO2 transport vary based on
volume, pressure, and transportation mode; in each case, the HMR mandate
the use of an approved cylinder or tank, subject to specific
requirements for design, testing, certification, and filling.

The Department assumed oversight of CO2 pipelines in 1988, under
legislation directing the Secretary to develop regulations for the safe
transportation of CO2 by pipeline. Pursuant to the mandate, in 1991, the
Department extended its existing hazardous liquid pipeline rules (49
C.F.R. part 195) to these operations. CO2 pipelines became subject to
additional integrity management requirements when the liquid IM program
was adopted in 2000.

As with liquid operations generally, PHMSA shares oversight of certain
CO2 pipelines with authorized State programs. Together with these State
partners, PHMSA currently oversees close to 4,000 miles of CO2
transmission pipelines (as depicted in Figure 1) – amounting to
roughly five percent of all hazardous liquid pipeline mileage under our
jurisdiction. Of these CO2 lines, approximately 66% are interstate
(crossing State borders) pipelines with the remaining 34% classified as
intrastate (within State borders). Located primarily in the States of
Texas, New Mexico and Wyoming, these pipelines deliver CO2 for a
variety of industrial purposes, including enhanced oil recovery
activities. Within the national pipeline network as a whole, the CO2
lines are relatively new: approximately 91% were constructed after 1980.

[Image depicting: CO2 Pipelines in US as of 12/17/07]

As the Administration and Congress work to enhance our Nation's energy
security and protect the environment, we understand the need to extend
the transportation infrastructure – including the delivery of
alternative fuels and the transport of CO2 for sequestration or use in
energy production. And we understand the importance of pipeline
transportation for safe and efficient movement of large volumes of
hazardous materials. With the right risk controls in place, pipelines
can operate safely anywhere – it's not a matter of "if," but "how."

PHMSA's pipeline safety program aims to promote continuous improvement
in public safety, environmental protection, and system performance by
identifying and addressing all threats to pipeline integrity and
mitigating the consequences of pipeline failures. Our regulations cover
the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of liquefied
natural gas (LNG) facilities and hazardous liquid and natural gas
pipelines, both interstate and intrastate, including the gas
distribution systems that directly serve homes and businesses. We work
closely with national and international standards organizations and
encourage the development of consensus standards complementing our
performance-based regulations.

Our integrity management regulations, which currently apply to
transmission pipelines (liquid and gas), require operators to conduct
risk assessments of the condition of their pipelines; develop and
implement risk control measures to remedy safety problems, worst first;
and evaluate and report on program progress and effectiveness. Under
integrity management programs, operators are identifying and repairing
pipeline defects before they grow to failure, producing steady declines
in the numbers of serious incidents.

Along with risk-based standards and practices, technological advances
are driving significant improvement in the control of pipeline risks.
PHMSA administers a cooperative research program that promotes the
development of new methods, materials, and tools for improving leak
detection systems and detecting and preventing corrosion, outside force
damage, and other threats to pipeline integrity. We work closely with
informed stakeholders, including other Federal agencies, our State
partners, and industry, to target our limited R&D funding on promising
technologies to address the most urgent safety issues. Most recently, in
preparation for the growing use of alternative fuels, our R&D program is
focused extensively on technical issues associated with the movement by
pipeline of ethanol and ethanol-blended fuels.

As an agency dedicated to the safe transportation of hazardous
materials, PHMSA must be more than a regulator. Our success depends on
our ability to leverage non-regulatory solutions and to work closely
with all stakeholders who can contribute to safety outcomes, including
communities in the path of existing or new pipelines. Although PHMSA has
no authority in pipeline siting, we work closely with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) in reviewing designs for proposed gas
transmission pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities and in
responding to local concerns about pipeline safety. We consult with
other Federal and State agencies on how our regulatory requirements
relate to their permitting decisions about pipelines. Recognizing that
public decisions affecting transportation and energy supply often must
be made at a national level, we believe a pipeline safety program can
and must involve local communities, including zoning and planning
officials and emergency responders. As part of a comprehensive approach
to pipeline safety, we believe in preparing communities to make
risk-informed land use decisions and in building local capability to
respond to pipeline incidents. PHMSA works closely with fire service
organizations on numerous safety projects, including the development of
training standards and educational materials concerning pipeline
incident response.

To carry out our oversight responsibilities, PHMSA operates five
regional pipeline safety offices and is authorized to employ 111
inspection and enforcement professionals for fiscal year 2008. In
addition to compliance monitoring and enforcement, PHMSA's regional
offices respond to and investigate pipeline incidents and participate in
the development of pipeline safety rules and technical standards. Our
regional offices also work closely with PHMSA's State program partners
which employ approximately 400 pipeline inspectors and directly oversee
the largest share of the U.S. pipeline network, including most
intrastate pipelines. Under our Congressionally-authorized Community
Assistance and Technical Services (CATS) program, PHMSA's regional
offices provide safety-focused community outreach and education. With
the current wave of pipeline expansion, and increasing commercial and
residential development around existing pipelines, the CATS program is
serving a vital role in educating the public about pipeline safety and
encouraging risk-informed land use planning and safe excavation
practices.

[Graph depicting: Serious Pipeline Incidents Involving Death or Injury
(1998-2007)]

With safety our top priority, under Secretary Peters' leadership, the
Department is targeting the prevention of all transportation-related
deaths and injuries. Although further improvement is needed, the safety
record for hazardous materials transportation is good and getting better
in all sectors, including hazardous liquid pipeline operations. Since
the introduction of IM programs in 2000, the annual number of serious
incidents involving hazardous liquid pipelines has reached historic
lows, even as the size of the pipeline network has grown. Although the
data sets are not yet large enough to make statistically significant
comparisons, the trend line over the past 20 years (as depicted in
Figure 2) is favorable.

Within these data, the safety record for CO2 pipelines is particularly
good. Of the 3,695 serious accidents reported on hazardous liquid
pipelines since 1994, only 36 involved CO2 pipelines. Among the 36
incidents, only one injury, and no fatalities, was reported. In all
other instances, the accidents were classified as serious based on the
extent of property damage (including damage to the pipeline facility) or
product loss.

With the benefit of this experience and record, PHMSA is pleased to work
with the Committee, our Federal and State partners, and industry to
prepare for the safe operation of new or extended CO2 pipelines. The
existing pipeline safety program administered by PHMSA has provided
effective oversight of CO2 pipelines since 1991 and will accommodate new
and expanded carbon dioxide pipelines, however they are configured. We
are happy to work with the Department of Energy and other Federal
partners to evaluate the feasibility of particular pipeline
configurations and/or plan for their development.

Likewise, PHMSA is committed to working with any agency or agencies
involved in siting CO2 pipelines, just as we work with FERC today in
connection with the licensing of gas transmission pipelines and LNG
facilities. We offer our agency's considerable experience and technical
expertise to the Committee as it considers and addresses the
transportation requirements associated with CO2 capture and
sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you and members of the Committee that the
Administration, Secretary Peters, and the dedicated men and women of
PHMSA share your strong commitment to safe, clean, and reliable pipeline
transportation. Like you, we understand the importance of PHMSA's
mission to the Nation's economic prosperity and energy security, and we
look forward to working with the Committee to address the current
challenges.

Thank you.


[Federal Register: February 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6202-6203]
[DOCID:fr05fe09-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Forty-Seventh Meeting, RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 186 Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186 Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B).

DATES: The meeting will be held February 23-27, 2009, at 9 a.m. (Unless
Otherwise Noted).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at two locations:
     Eurocontrol Headquarters--Brussels, Belgium
     RTCA Conference Rooms, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805,
Washington, DC 20036

    Note: Phone bridge and Webex will be available. Individuals
desiring that information should contact RTCA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036,<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202) 833-
9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 186 meeting. The agenda will
include:

Feb. 23

Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), RAD FRAC.
Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), ASA.

Feb. 24

Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), RAD FRAC.
Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), ASA.
RTCA--All Day, WG-4, MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.

Feb. 25

Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), RAD FRAC.
Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), ASA.
RTCA--All Day, WG-4, MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.

Feb. 26

Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), RAD FRAC.
Brussels--All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), ASA.
RTCA--All Day, WG-4, MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.

February 27, Joint RTCA SC-186/EUROCAE WG-51

(Starting at 2 p.m. in Brussels and 8 a.m. at RTCA)

 Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
 Review of Meeting Agenda.
 Review/Approval of the Forty-Sixth Meeting Summary.
 RTCA Paper No. 267-08/SC186-270.
 In Brussels--Consider for Approval--New Document--Safety and
Performance Requirements (SPR) Standard for ADS-B-RAD, RTCA Paper No.
008-09/SC186-271. Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting.
 FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program--Status.
 Review of EUROCAE WG-51 Activities.
 Working Group Reports.
     WG-1--Operations and Implementation
     WG-2--TIS-B MASPS
     WG-3--1090 MHz MOPS
     WG-4--Application Technical Requirements
     WG-5--UAT MOPS
     RFG--Requirements Focus Group
     Ad Hoc Reports
     CDTI Symbology
     TIS-B Service Status
     STP Ad Hoc Final Report
 At RTCA--Consider for Approval--New Document--Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Aircraft Surveillance
Applications System (ASAS), RTCA Paper No. 022-09/SC186-273.
 Closing Plenary Session (New Business, Other Business, Review
Action Items/Work Programs, Adjourn Plenary.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-2476 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6030-6031]
[DOCID:fr06fe06-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8028-4]
RIN 2060-AK18

National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed
National Perchloroethylene Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning
Facilities, published on December 21, 2005 (70 FR 75884), is being
extended until March 23, 2006.

DATES: The comment period has been extended from February 6, 2006 to on
or before March 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0155, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0155. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified

as CBI to only the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2005-0155, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. 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 be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 EPA Docket Center,

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rhea Jones, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Program Design Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by the proposed rule are industrial and
commercial PCE dry cleaners. The proposed rule affects the following
categories of sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NAICS \1\
                    Category                        Code         Examples of potentially  regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin-operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners.......     812310  Dry-to-dry machines.
                                                            Transfer machines.
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (except coin-     812320  Dry-to-dry machines.
 operated).                                                 Transfer machines.
Industrial Launderers..........................     812332  Dry-to-dry machines.
                                                            Transfer machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the
proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.320 of subpart M (1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Submitting CBI: Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the

part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information submitted on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed rule is also available on the http://WWW.

Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule
will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Comment Period

    We received a request to extend the public comment period to March
23, 2006. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment
period will now end on March 23, 2006, rather than February 6, 2006.

How can I get copies of the proposed amendments and other related
information?

    EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed
rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. Information on how
to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. In
addition, information may be obtained from the webpage for the proposed
rulemaking at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dryperc/dryclpg.html, or from

the Federal Register (70 FR 75884, December 21, 2005).

    Dated: January 27, 2006.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc.06-1070 Filed 2-3-06 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 33997]
[DOCID:fr20jn07-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-374-008]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rates

June 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 8, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation
(Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
July 9, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 400
First Revised Sheet No. 401

    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon
Northwest's customers and upon interested state regulatory commissions.
    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 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11869 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9876-9877]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0055; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of VOR Federal Airways V-10, V-12, and V-
508 in the Vicinity of Olathe, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify three VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-10, V-12, and V-508 in the vicinity of Olathe,
KS. The FAA is proposing this action to adjust the airway route
structure due to the planned decommissioning of the Johnson County VOR/
DME navigation aid located on Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe,
KS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0055 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-0055 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0055 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX
76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    The Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center requested the
decommissioning of the Johnson County (OJC) VOR/DME navigation aid
located on the Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, KS, due to
poor performance of the navigation aid. The OJC VOR/DME performs poorly
due to suburban encroachment into the facility's critical areas.
Approach procedures using the facility as the primary navigational aid
have been cancelled while other procedures serving the airport are
being amended to discontinue use of the facility. Additionally,
building infrastructure housing the VOR/DME equipment is deteriorating
rapidly. The building is prone to water leakage jeopardizing the
equipment and creating hazardous working conditions for maintenance
personnel. As a result, the OJC VOR/DME is no longer cost effective to
maintain and operate and is planned to be decommissioned without
replacement.
    The FAA conducted an aeronautical study of the proposal to
decommission the Johnson County VOR/DME in 2009 and issued a
determination of non-objection with the special provision that all
instrument procedures that utilize the OJC VOR/DME be modified with
minimal impact to the aviation community. This proposed action would
modify the affected airways to provide continued navigation capability
in the Olathe, KS, area.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify V-10, V-12, and V-508 in the
vicinity of Olathe, KS. These changes are required due to the planned
decommissioning of the OJC VOR/DME in July 2012.
    The proposed changes to V-10 and V-12 are administrative in nature
and intended to keep the route segments in the vicinity of Olathe, KS,
between Emporia, KS, and Napoleon, MO, unchanged. To retain the airway
structure of these airways, the FAA would establish the WETZL fix at
the same location depicting the OJC VOR/DME navigation aid. The
modification to V-10 and V-12 would replace the OJC VOR/DME in the
current airway descriptions with the WETZL fix (described as the
intersection of the navigation aid radials that define WETZL).
Specifically, the proposed modification to the V-10 and V-12
descriptions would replace the ``Johnson County, KS'' reference with
``INT Emporia 063[deg](T)/055[deg](M) and Napoleon, MO, 242[deg](T)/
235[deg](M) radials''. The magnetic radial information would be removed
in the final rule.
    As currently established, V-508 ends at the OJC VOR/DME. The
proposed change to V-508 would eliminate the

last 21 NM of the airway; terminating the route at the existing RUGBB
fix, shared with V-502. Ending the modified V-508 at the RUGBB fix
would provide eastbound IFR aircraft with the ability to continue to
destinations further east or northeast via transition from V-508 to V-
502.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal Airways
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it proposes to modify VOR Federal Airways in the vicinity of Olathe,
KS.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR federal airways.

* * * * *

V-10 [Amended]

    From Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; Garden
City, KS; Dodge City, KS; Hutchinson, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia
063[deg](T)/055[deg](M) and Napoleon, MO, 242[deg](T)/235[deg](M)
radials; Napoleon; Kirksville, MO; Burlington, IA; Bradford, IL; to
INT Bradford 058[deg] and Joliet, IL, 287[deg] radials. From INT
Chicago Heights, IL, 358[deg] and Gipper, MI, 271[deg] radials;
Gipper; Litchfield, MI; INT Litchfield 101[deg] and Carleton, MI,
262[deg] radials; Carleton; INT Jefferson, OH, 279[deg] and
Youngstown, OH, 320[deg] radials; Youngstown; INT Youngstown
116[deg] and Revloc, PA, 300[deg] radials; Revloc; INT Revloc
107[deg] and Lancaster, PA, 280[deg] radials; to Lancaster. The
airspace within Canada is excluded.
* * * * *

V-12 [Amended]

    From Gaviota, CA; San Marcus, CA; Palmdale, CA; 38 miles, 6
miles wide, Hector, CA; 12 miles, 38 miles, 85 MSL, 14 miles, 75
MSL, Needles, CA; 45 miles, 34 miles, 95 MSL, Drake, AZ; Winslow,
AZ; 30 miles, 85 MSL, Zuni, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Otto, NM; Anton
Chico, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Amarillo, TX; Mitbee, OK; Anthony, KS;
Wichita, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063[deg](T)/055[deg](M) and
Napoleon, MO, 242[deg](T)/235[deg](M) radials; Napoleon; INT
Napoleon 095[deg] and Columbia, MO, 292[deg] radials; Columbia;
Foristell, MO; Troy, IL; Bible Grove, IL; Shelbyville, IN; Richmond,
IN; Dayton, OH; Appleton, OH; Newcomerstown, OH; Allegheny, PA;
Johnstown, PA; Harrisburg, PA; INT Harrisburg 092[deg] and
Pottstown, PA, 278[deg] radials; to Pottstown.
* * * * *

V-508 [Amended]

    From Hill City, KS; Hays, KS; Salina, KS, INT Salina 082[deg]
and Manhattan, KS, 207[deg] radials; Manhattan; INT Manhattan
078[deg] and Topeka, KS, 293[deg] radials; Topeka; to INT Topeka
112[deg](T)/107[deg](M) and Kansas City, MO, 228[deg](T)/223[deg](M)
radials.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 9, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations & ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-3820 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19095-19096]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7901]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0342; FRL- 8870-1]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives
notice that a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee (PPDC) is scheduled for April 20-21, 2011. A draft agenda is
under development that will include Integrated Pest Management,
Pollinator Protection, Children/Worker Risk Policy, Endangered Species
Act issues; and reports from and discussions about current issues from
the following PPDC work groups: 21st Century Toxicology/New Integrated
Testing Strategies; Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)
Process Improvements; Comparative Safety Statements for Pesticide
Product Labeling; and Public Health Work Group. Updates will also cover
spray drift, inerts disclosure, water quality issues, and the
regulatory improvement initiative. PPDC work group meetings are also
being scheduled and are open to the public. The PPDC PRIA Process Work
Group will meet on April 19, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and the PPDC
Public Health Workgroup will meet on April 19, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 5
p.m.

DATES: The PPDC meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 20, 2011, from
9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Thursday, April 21, 2011, from 9 a.m. to noon.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Conference Center on the
lobby level at EPA's location at 1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA. This location is approximately one mile from the
Crystal City Metro Station.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide
Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these
major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996;
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and
farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental,
consumer, and farmworker groups; animal welfare organizations;
pesticide users and growers; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal
governments; academia; public health organizations; food processors;
and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0342. Although a part
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
    A draft agenda is being developed and will be posted by April 1,
2011, on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/.

II. Background

    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply,
the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply
or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products,
and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from
potential risks posed by pesticides.
    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticide
Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) was established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995,
and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was
renewed October 30, 2009, for another 2-year period. The purpose of
PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform
initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues,
and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from
use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest
in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by
law. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC: Pesticide
industry and trade associations; environmental/public interest,
consumer, and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations;
pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/
Tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations.
    Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of
Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    PPDC meetings are open to the public and seating is available on a
first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to
register in advance of the meeting. Comments may be made during the
public comment session of each meeting or in writing to the address
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture,
Chemicals, Endangered species, Foods, Integrated Pest Management,
Pesticide labels, Pesticides and pests, Pollinator protection, Public
health.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Martha Monell,
Acting, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-7901 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


FROM:	Jeff Coburn  -  RTI International
TO:	Phil Mulrine, EPA/OAQPS
FOR:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373
DATE:	July 3, 2019
SUBJECT:	Control Cost Estimates for Metal HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries
1.	Purpose
      This memorandum documents the analysis conducted to assess potential additional metal HAP emission control requirements as part of the ample margin of safety assessment for the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for major source iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEEE).
2.	Background
      Section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop maximum available control technology (MACT) standards to control hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from major sources. The term "major source" means any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. On April 22, 2004, the EPA published final standards for iron and steel foundries that are major sources of HAP emissions (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE).
      Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's interpretation of "ample margin of safety" developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). In the ample margin of safety assessment, the EPA considers, among other things, additional standards that reduce the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, taking into account costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors.
      Based on the results of the residual risk analysis, several facilities are estimated to have maximum individual risk (MIR)s above 1-in-1 million due to the emissions of metal HAP. The metal HAP that contributed most to elevated risk include hexavalent chromium, nickel, and arsenic. These metal HAP emissions occur from alloying or inoculation (adding specific metals to molten iron or steel to achieve specific properties for the cast part), scrap handling and charging, and ladle transfers and pouring. For ease of reference within this memorandum, we will refer to these as "ancillary sources of metal HAP emissions."  In general, these ancillary sources of metal HAP emissions are "fugitive" in nature. That is, they are not captured and discharged though a conveyance to the atmosphere, but rather emitted through open roof vents or building openings. The emissions from these ancillary sources of metal HAP emissions are currently subject to the building opacity limit in the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7).
3.	Emission Estimates for Ancillary Sources of Metal HAP Emissions
      We used the 2014 national emissions inventory (NEI) data set for iron and steel foundries that was developed for the risk and technology review (EPA, 2019). We filtered this data for just metal HAP and then filtered the data to exclude emissions from direct melting furnaces and combustion units (e.g. steam generating boilers). We determined that the resulting culled data set was a reasonable upper-range estimate of the emissions from ancillary metal HAP emission sources. The facility-wide metal HAP emissions from ancillary sources for each foundry that reported such emissions is provided in Table 1. There are 29 foundries that reported some metal HAP emissions from ancillary sources and 16 foundries that reported metal HAP emissions from ancillary sources of 150 pounds per year (0.075 tons/yr) or more (shaded facilities in Table 1). The total nationwide metal HAP emissions for ancillary sources were estimated to be 5.09 tons/yr, with an average foundry emission rate of 0.175 tons/yr (5.088/29). The average estimated metal HAP emissions rate from ancillary sources at the 16 foundries with reported ancillary emissions of 150 pounds per year or more is 0.293 tons/year (4.685/16).
4.	Control Cost Estimates for Metal HAP Emissions from Ancillary Sources
      Reducing the emissions from ancillary sources of metal HAP would require installing and operating capture systems (e.g., hooding, duct work, fans, etc.) that direct the emissions to a particulate control device (e.g., scrubber or baghouse). In some applications, an existing particulate control device may have adequate capacity for handling the additional gas stream load, but in general, we expect that a new particulate control device would be required due to the relatively large volumes of air that may need to be collected. Most iron and steel foundries use baghouse control systems for their particulate matter control; therefore, we estimated the costs based on installing new hooding, duct work, fans and a relatively small baghouse specifically to control these ancillary sources of metal HAP emissions.
      Key parameters needed to develop the control costs for a fabric filter control system, commonly referred to as a baghouse, include the volumetric flow rate, application type, and the number of hours the source is operated per year. The volumetric flow rate of gas to be treated is dependent on the size of the source and the ability to provide a close capture hooding system. If the emission source can be enclosed or the capture system is located very near the source, less volume of gas is needed to ensure good capture of emissions. If a side draft hood or canopy hood well above the source is used, more air flow is needed for good capture. Because this analysis focuses on applying controls to existing sources, we expect that side draft hooding or canopy hooding somewhat removed from the source would be needed, resulting in higher volumes of gas collected and routed to the baghouse.
Table 1. Reported Metal HAP Emissions Estimates from Ancillary Sources by Foundry
                                 Facility Name
                                     City
                                     State
             Metal HAP Emissions from Ancillary Sources (tons/yr)
 John Deere Foundry Waterloo
Waterloo
                                      IA
     1.04
 DMI Columbus, LLC
Columbus
                                      GA
     0.4625
 U. S. Pipe & Foundry Company, LLC
Bessemer
                                      AL
     0.4384
 Nidec Minster Corporation
Minster
                                      OH
     0.3915
 Magotteaux Pulaski
Pulaski
                                      TN
     0.3106
 Waupaca Foundry Inc -Plant 4
Marinette
                                      WI
     0.3034
 Esco Corporation
Portland
                                      OR
     0.2783
 Liberty Casting Co.
Delaware
                                      OH
     0.2675
 Dalton Corporation Warsaw Manufacturing
Warsaw
                                      IN
     0.2284
 McWane
Tyler
                                      TX
     0.2113
 Alliance Casting Co. LLC
Alliance
                                      OH
     0.1946
 Clow Valve Company - Foundry
Oskaloosa
                                      IA
     0.1840
 Bradken - Atchison/St. Joseph
Atchison
                                      KS
     0.09783
 Waupaca Foundry Inc Plant 1
Waupaca
                                      WI
     0.09279
 Metal Technologies Auburn LLC
Auburn
                                      IN
     0.09206
 Waupaca Foundry Inc
Tell City
                                      IN
     0.09176
 Ardmore Foundry
Ardmore
                                      OK
     0.07
 Waupaca Foundry Inc-Plants 2 / 3
Waupaca
                                      WI
     0.05783
 Harrison Steel Castings Company
Attica
                                      IN
     0.05521
 Aarrowcast Inc
Shawano
                                      WI
     0.05470
 Neenah Foundry Co - Plants 2 and 3
Neenah
                                      WI
     0.05102
 Grede LLC
New Castle
                                      IN
     0.04395
 Quality Electric Steel Castings
Houston
                                      TX
     0.0255
 Intat Precision Incorporated
Rushville
                                      IN
     0.01470
 Rochester Metal Products Corp
Rochester
                                      IN
     0.01209
 American Cast Iron Pipe Company
Birmingham
                                      AL
     0.01034
 Ward Mfg Llc/Blossburg Plts 1-3
Blossburg
                                      PA
     0.00548
 Cadillac Casting, Inc
Cadillac
                                      MI
     0.00171
 Caterpillar Inc
Mapleton
                                      IL
     0.000935

      For this screening analysis, we assumed the capture system would have a flow rate of between 40,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) and 80,000 acfm, depending on the size, configuration, and number of the ancillary metal HAP emissions sources present at the foundry. We assumed that all ancillary emission sources could be ducted to a single control system. We assumed the capture system and control device would operate 4,000 hours per year.
      We developed capital investment and total annualized costs for two modular pulse-jet baghouse systems using the methods provided in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (U.S. EPA, 2002): one system with a design capacity or 40,000 acfm and one system with a design capacity or 80,000 acfm. Costs for pulse-jet systems were used because they are commonly used at foundries and they are generally less costly than shaker or reverse-air systems because they can achieve high removal efficiencies with higher gas-to-cloth ratios. We used a material factor of 9.0 (for metal powder) and an application factor of 0.8 (process gas filtration), which resulted in a design gas-to-cloth ratio of 7.66 acfm/ft[2]. Capital costs were escalated to 2017 dollars, and a retrofit factor of 1.3 was applied to the capital costs to account for additional costs associated with retrofitting the control system to an existing plant. An equipment life of 20 years was assumed along with a bag life of 2 years. The capital costs were annualized using a 5 percent annual interest rate. Operating costs were based on 2017 values summarized in Table 2.
               Table 2. Summary of 2017 Utility and Labor Rates
      Description
   Cost
    Units
 Electricity
 $0.0688
 per kWh
 Compressed Air
 $0.25
 per 1,000 scf
 Operator Labor Rate
 $27.48
 per hour
 Maintenance Labor Rate
 $30.23
 per hour
 Dust Disposal Cost
 $0.05
 per ton

      The projected capital and annualized costs for the model capture and baghouse control systems are summarized in Table 3.
              Table 3. Cost Estimates for Model Baghouse Systems
                             Model Control System
                            Design Flow Rate (acfm)
                            Total Capital Cost ($)
                         Total Annualized Cost ($/yr)
                          Electricity Use (kW-hr/yr)
                                Small Baghouse
                                    40,000
                                    607,000
                                    146,000
                                    187,100
                                Large Baghouse
                                    80,000
                                   1,013,000
                                    270,000
                                    374,200

      Because the flow rate of the capture system is more dependent on the configuration of the capture system than the total amount of PM or metal HAP emitted, we did not assign foundries to the model plants based on the reported HAP emissions. Instead, we assumed that approximately half of the foundries would have a 40,000 acfm system and the other half would have an 80,000 acfm system. More specifically, considering 29 foundries with metal HAP emissions from ancillary sources, we assigned 15 foundries to the 40,000 acfm system and 14 foundries to the 80,000 acfm system. Table 4 summarizes the development of nationwide costs when considering all foundries with ancillary metal HAP emissions sources.
      Table 4. Development of Nationwide Cost Estimates for all Foundries
                             Model Control System
                           No. of Foundries Assigned
                       Aggregate Total Capital Cost ($)
                    Aggregate Total Annualized Cost ($/yr)
                                Small Baghouse
                                      15
                                   9,102,000
                                   2,189,000
                                Large Baghouse
                                      14
                                  14,186,000
                                   3,777,000
                                  Nationwide
                                      29
                                  23,288,000
                                   5,966,000

      We also assessed the nationwide costs of a targeted regulatory option that only required control of ancillary sources if these sources had combined emissions of more than 150 lbs/yr. We again assumed half (8) of the foundries could use the 40,000 acfm system and the other half (8) would need the 80,000 acfm system. Table 5 summarizes the development of the nationwide costs of a targeted regulation for sources with high metal HAP emissions from ancillary sources.
   Table 5. Development of Nationwide Cost Estimates for Targeted Regulation
                             Model Control System
                           No. of Foundries Assigned
                       Aggregate Total Capital Cost ($)
                    Aggregate Total Annualized Cost ($/yr)
                                Small Baghouse
                                       8
                                   4,854,000
                                   1,167,000
                                Large Baghouse
                                       8
                                   8,106,000
                                   2,158,000
                                  Nationwide
                                      16
                                  12,960,000
                                   3,326,000

      Baghouses can generally achieve 99 percent reduction in PM and metal HAP emissions. However, for these ancillary sources, the capture system will likely limit the overall control efficiency of the system. For this analysis, we assumed an overall capture and control system would achieve a 90 percent reduction in metal HAP emissions. Table 6 provides a summary of the cost effectiveness for a general and a targeted regulation for controlling ancillary sources of metal HAP emissions.
     Table 6. Summary of Cost Effectiveness for Metal HAP Control Options
                                Control Option
                       Nationwide Total Capital Cost ($)
                    Nationwide Total Annualized Cost ($/yr)
                    Metal HAP Emission Reduction (tons/yr)
                 Cost Effectiveness ($/ton metal HAP reduced)
                                 All Foundries
                                  23,290,000
                                   5,970,000
                                     4.58
                                   1,300,000
                           Foundries >= 150 lbs/yr
                                  12,960,000
                                   3,330,000
                                     4.22
                                    790,000

5.	References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. 6th Edition. EPA/452/B-02-001. Baghouses and Filters. Section 6, Chapter 1 (chapter dated December 1998). Available at:  https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Residual Risk Assessment for Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, Appendix 1. In Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54727-54728]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1219]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Survey of Health Care Practitioners for Device
Labeling Format and Content

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the proposed information collection
``Survey of Health Care Practitioners for Device Labeling Format and
Content.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by November 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the 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, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each

proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to
OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing
notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this
document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Survey of Health Care Practitioners for Device Labeling Format and
Content--21 CFR Part 801 (OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)

    The purpose of this study is to compare existing device labeling
from approximately six different types of medical devices with a
standard content and format of the same labeling that FDA researchers
will develop using the existing labeling as their source of the
information.
    Building upon the research methodology and success of the approach
FDA used to evaluate drug labeling, we propose to measure the usability
and usefulness of a draft standard content and format of device
labeling against existing manufacturer labeling of the same device.
This will support our research that has already been done to assess
whether health care practitioners (HCPs) find the format and content of
device labeling to be clear, understandable, useful, and user friendly
(OMB control number 0910-0715). Findings will provide evidence to
inform FDA's planned regulatory approach to standardizing medical
device labeling across the United States.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of
                                     Number of    responses      Total       Average       Total       Capital
        Type of respondent          respondents      per         annual    burden  per     hours        costs
                                                  respondent   responses     response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCPs participating at a hospital..            8            1            8            2           16
HCPs participating at FDA.........           30            1           30            4          120         $600
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          136          600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We will conduct the studies at three different sites including two
area hospitals using their devices, existing labeling, and HCPs. We
expect that the maximum time for testing will be 2 hours. Given a
sample of 6 devices with 2 different labeling types, there will be 12
different labeling types to be tested. We plan to have eight people
test each type of the labeling.
    We will also conduct the studies on FDA's campus using medical
devices received from medical device industry representatives through a
material transfer agreement. To account for travel time and cost, we
have included 2 additional hours and $20 per respondent in the burden
estimate for HCPs participating at FDA.

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-21725 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Farm ID # _______________

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Enterprise Budget Work Sheets Alternatives Strawberry  Double Crop Yield Cartons Per Acre  Strawberry Cartons Per Acre  Cucurbits IFAS Average 2,156 564 Farm Information Cost Information IFAS Farm Information Acre Carton Acre Carton Pre Harvest Production Costs:

Fertilizer 627.75 Fumigant 847.00 Crop Protection Materials 1,830.68 Transplants/ Seeds 1,776.30 Stakes Plastic String Plastic Mulch/ Irrigation Tubing 639.99 Frost Protection Machinery: Irrigation 394.56 Non irrigation 486.40 Plastic Mulch/ Drip Tape Disposal 75.00 Scounting 55.00 Labor Costs: Tractor Drivers 329.44 Direct Labor 513.90 Miscellaneous 307.50 Interest 539.40 Fixed Costs: Land Cost 1,000.00 Supervision 268.67 Overhead 2,560.93 Total Pre Harvest Production Costs: 12,252.52 $ 4.50 $  $ # DIV/ 0!

Harvesting 7,267.60 $ 2.67 $ # DIV/ 0!

Packing, Selling & Related Overhead 7,736.08 $ 2.84 $ # DIV/ 0! Farming Costs:

DCTM_ ARP. xls August 3, 2003 Farm ID # _______________

TOTAL COST: 27,256.20 $ 10.02 $  $ # DIV/ 0!

DCTM_ ARP. xls August 3, 2003


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491.  I am requesting that the FDA extend the comment period for the Proposed Rule for an additional 105 days (from its current 75-day period) to 180 days.

As someone who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking, this matter is very important to me. Given the length and complexity of the proposed regulations, more time is needed to analyze them in order to provide cogent and relevant comments.  As this is  a matter of vital importance to me and other consumers, I request the FDA to exercise its authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame,

Thank you for your consideration of this request..