[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19556-19557]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09332]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0500; FRL-9977-47-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Residential
Sector

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR)--EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the
Residential Sector, EPA ICR Number 2193.04, OMB Control Number 2060-
0586--to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on January
5, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0500, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Ng, Energy Star Residential
Branch, Mailcode 6202A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
343-9162; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR, which can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Docket Center
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: ENERGY STAR[supreg] is a voluntary energy efficiency
labeling and public outreach program aimed at forming public-private
partnerships that prevent air pollution rather than control it after
its creation. ENERGY STAR's new construction programs promote cost-
effective, whole house energy efficiency that is independently verified
by third party professionals. ENERGY STAR also promotes cost-effective
energy efficiency improvements in existing homes through its ENERGY
STAR Verified HVAC Installation program. Participation in the ENERGY
STAR program is voluntary and included the following activities:
    Joining the ENERGY STAR Program and Related Activities: An
organization interested in joining ENERGY STAR as a partner is asked to
complete and submit a partnership agreement. Partners agree to
undertake efforts such as educating their staff and the public about
the partnership, developing and implementing a plan to improve energy
performance in homes, and highlighting achievements utilizing the
ENERGY STAR label.
    Verification of ENERGY STAR Guidelines: The verification process
for site-built homes involves the home builder, the third-party
verification organization (Home Energy Rating Providers and Home Energy
Raters) and the HVAC contractor, which complete four checklists as part
of the verification process. The verification process for multifamily
high-rise units involves the developer submitting information both pre-
construction and post-construction to a third-party Multifamily High
Rise Review Organization to ensure that program prerequisites and
energy conservation measures are properly installed and meet ENERGY
STAR requirements. In addition, plants producing manufactured homes
undergo a certification process to ensure that they can consistently
produce and install homes that meet ENERGY STAR guidelines. Also, under
ENERGY STAR's Verified HVAC Installation program, local program
sponsors promote the installation of HVAC systems in homes to meet
ENERGY

STAR guidelines. Sponsors oversee contractors who perform the
installations, perform tests, and report the results to the sponsors.
Sponsors submit periodic reports to EPA on these activities.
    Evaluation: Partners and other participants are asked to
periodically submit information as needed to assist in evaluating the
effectiveness of ENERGY STAR's energy efficiency guidelines, to provide
information about energy efficiency incentives available to the public,
and to determine the impact that ENERGY STAR has on the market for
energy-efficient homes.
    Periodic Reporting: Some partners are asked to periodically submit
information to EPA to assist EPA in tracking and measuring progress in
building and promoting ENERGY STAR certified homes and installing and
promoting energy-efficient improvements.
    ENERGY STAR Awards: Each year, partners who meet specific criteria
are eligible to apply for an ENERGY STAR award, which recognizes
organizations demonstrating outstanding support in promoting ENERGY
STAR.
    Form Numbers: 5900-188, 5900-266, 5900-268, 5900-269, 5900-270,
5900-420, 5900-421, 5900-422, 5900-423, 5900-424, 5900-425, 5900-426,
5900-427, 5900-428, 5900-429.
    Respondents/affected entities: ENERGY STAR partners, including home
builders, multifamily high rise developers, manufactured home plants,
verification organizations, and energy efficiency program sponsors.
Also included are oversight organizations and HVAC contractors.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary
    Estimated number of respondents: 3,235 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once, quarterly, annually, and on occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 177,847 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $14,747,008 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 6,120 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This includes a 68,457-hour decrease due primarily to
program changes and a 62,337-hour increase due to adjustments resulting
primarily from improved data and analysis. EPA's program changes
include the sun-setting of several programs and collections, including
the Lender Partnership program, the Designed to Earn program, and the
Outreach Partnership. In addition, the Home Performance with ENERGY
STAR program was transferred from EPA to the U.S. Department of Energy.
EPA also will no longer collect homeowner information related to ENERGY
STAR certified homes or other programmatic information under this ICR.
EPA's adjustments include updating the number of respondents and
burdens based on improved data and analysis.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-09332 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12804-12806]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4381; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-009-
AD;Amendment 39-18428; AD 2016-05-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters with
certain external life rafts. This AD requires installing a sheath kit
on the left-hand and right-hand raft deployment control systems. This
AD is prompted by a report that the life raft deployment control could
not be adjusted due to problems with the life raft deployment linkage.
This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the
external life raft to deploy and prevent evacuation of passengers
during an emergency.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 28, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of March 28, 2016.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4381; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
incorporated by reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. It is also on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4381.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2015-0048, dated March 17, 2015,
to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3,
EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. EASA advises that after installation
of a new life raft on a helicopter, the travel of the life raft
deployment control could not be properly adjusted, putting at risk
proper life raft inflation. According to a technical analysis, the
varying positions of the life raft inflation cylinder inside the bag
containing the life raft, as well as the varying positions of the bag
within the life raft container, may cause the life raft deployment
control cable to loosen and travel insufficiently.
    This condition could result in failure of the external life raft to
deploy after a ditching, impeding or preventing the safe evacuation of
helicopter occupants, EASA states. EASA consequently requires
alteration of the life raft deployment control by installing a sheath
kit, which Airbus Helicopters identifies as Modification 365A084711.00
and 365A084711.01.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information

provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
AS365-25.01.45 and ASB No. EC155-25A128, both Revision 1, and both
dated February 2, 2015. The service information reports that the
position of the life raft inflation cylinder may slacken the deployment
control cable for new life rafts installed on Model AS 365 N3, EC 155B,
and EC155B1 helicopters. In one instance, travel of the life raft
deployment control could not be adjusted as stated in the maintenance
manual. This anomaly is due to the varying positions of the inflation
cylinder inside the bag that contains the life raft, and the varying
positions of the bag inside the container, related to the installation
and removal of optional equipment, calendar overhauls, life raft
storage, shock impacts, and in-flight vibrations. Airbus Helicopters
consequently developed modification 365A084711.00 and 365A084711.01,
which ensure sufficient travel of the life raft deployment control
cable in all positions of the inflation cylinder by installing an
improved sheath kit on the left hand and right hand deployment
controls.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before the next flight over water, installing a
sheath kit on the left-hand and right-hand raft deployment controls.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires installing a sheath kit on the left-hand and
right-hand raft deployment controls within 110 hours time-in-service or
before further flight for helicopters required to have life rafts,
whichever occurs later. This AD requires installing a sheath kit on the
left-hand and right-hand raft deployment controls before the next
flight over water.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 23 helicopters of U.S.
Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect that installing the sheath kits requires 4 work-
hours and a parts cost of $50 for a total cost of $390 per helicopter
and $8,970 for the U.S. fleet.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because many of the affected
helicopters are located along major waterways, and the required
corrective actions must be accomplished before the next flight over
water.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
prior public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists to make this
AD effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-05-10 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-18428; Docket No. FAA-
2015-4381; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-009-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3, EC 155B,
and EC155B1 helicopters with an external life raft part number
245431-0, 245431-1, 245434-0, or 245434-1 installed, certificated in
any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an external life raft's
failure to deploy. This condition could prevent the safe evacuation
of helicopter occupants during an emergency landing in water.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 28, 2016.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before the next flight over water, install a sheath kit on each
left-hand and right-hand life raft deployment control in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2, of Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-25.01.45,
Revision 1, dated February 2, 2015, or ASB No. EC155-25A128,
Revision 1, dated February 2, 2015, whichever is applicable to your
helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0048, dated March 17, 2015. You may view
the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-4381.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: Life Raft, 2564.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-
25.01.45, Revision 1, dated February 2, 2015.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC155-25A128,
Revision 1, dated February 2, 2015.
    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 29, 2016.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04981 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 11275]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1061-103]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

February 18, 2020.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 1061-103.
    c. Date filed: August 24, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Phoenix Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the South Fork
Stanislaus River and in the Tuolumne River Basin, in Tuolumne County,
California. The project occupies 56.78 acres of federal land
administered by the U.S. Forest Service and 2.14 acres administered by
the Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Jan Nimick, Vice President, Power Generation,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 245 Market Street, San Francisco, CA
94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and
requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date
of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-1061-103.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The Phoenix Project consists of: (1) A 535-foot-long and 132-
foot-high concrete arch dam on the South Fork Stanislaus River; (2) a
172.3 acre reservoir; (3) a 133.1-foot-long and 20-foot-high concrete
arch cushion dam; (4) a 15.38-mile-long Main Tuolumne Canal (MTC); (5)
a Header Box (forebay); (6) a 5,611-foot-long penstock; and (7) a
powerhouse with an impulse turbine rated at 1.6 megawatts.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's website 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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.....  March 2021.
Request Additional Information (if          May 2021.
 necessary).
Issue Scoping Document 2..................  June 2021.
Issue notice of ready for environmental     June 2021.
 analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03798 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1451-1452]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-
2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-27897]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 27, 2010. Comments must be
received on or before February 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2001-10578;
FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-27897, using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all

comments received without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information included in a comment. Please see
the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Donald J. Bierwirth, Jr., Ronald D. Boeve, Arthur L. Bousema, Matthew
W. Daggs, Donald R. Date, Jr., John E. Kimmet, Jr., Robert C. Leathers,
Jason L. Light, Robert Mollicone, Kenneth R. Murphy, Robert A. Sherry,
Stephen G. Sniffin, John R. Snyder.
    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provides a copy of the annual medical
certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retain a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 10300; 70 FR 41811; 72 FR
52422; 66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 69434; 71 FR 646; 72 FR 71995;
70 FR 74102; 73 FR 5259; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR
4632; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52419). Each of these 13 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by February 10, 2010.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 13 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA.
    The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if
safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would
not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a
driver.

    Issued on: December 22, 2009.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-199 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector
Risk Screen on Substitutes for Halon 1301
Total Flooding Systems in Normally Occupied Spaces
                             Substitute: Cold Fire

This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential Business Information (CBI) and, therefore, may be disclosed to the public.

INTRODUCTION
Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts that have taken place over the past two decades, including the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, administers the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, which identifies acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific end-uses based on assessment of their health and environmental impacts.

EPA's decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based on the findings of a screening assessment of potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications.  EPA has already screened a large number of substitutes in many end-use applications within all of the major ODS-using sectors, including refrigeration and air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented in a series of Background Documents that are available in EPA's docket.

The purpose of this risk screen is to supplement EPA's Background Document on the fire suppression and explosion protection sector (EPA 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Background Document). This risk screen discusses the potential human health and environmental risks posed by Cold Fire when used as a flooding agent in normally occupied spaces as a replacement for Halon 1301. The reader is referred to the Background Document for the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct this risk screen.

Cold Fire is designed for primary use in military vehicle fire protection in the Advanced Automatic Fire Extinguishing System Replacement (AFES-R). AFES-R contains one extinguisher filled with two gallons of Cold Fire. The extinguisher discharges Cold Fire into the vehicle at a specific rate to meet the design concentration needed to extinguish and suppress fires. For other applications, the extinguishing system may utilize a smaller or larger extinguisher size, such that the design concentration of Cold Fire, at a minimum, is applied to the occupied space.

Table 1 presents the composition of the proposed substitute.

                       Table 1: Composition of Cold Fire
                                  Constituent
                               Chemical Formula
                                    CAS No.
                         Percent of Total (by weight)

[a]N/A = not available.

Section 2 of this risk screen summarizes the results of the risk screen for the proposed substitute.  The remainder of the risk screen is organized into the following sections:

   * Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment;
   * Section 4: Potential Health Effects;
   * Section 5: Occupational Exposure Assessment;
   * Section 6: End-Use Exposure Assessment;
   * Section 7: General Population Exposure Assessment;
   * Section 8: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment; and
   * Section 9: References.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Cold Fire is recommended for SNAP approval as a flooding agent in normally occupied spaces.  Given that  proper training will be provided to personnel and that appropriate PPE (OSHA Category D) and proper procedures according to the MSDS (including provision of adequate ventilation) will be used during manufacturing and disposal activities, no significant risks to workers or the general population is anticipated.  Additionally, the risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of Halon 1301 and substitutes used in this sector, such as HFC-227ea and HFC-125.
ATMOSPHERIC ASSESSMENT
This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of Cold Fire as a flooding agent. Cold Fire contains no Class I or Class II ODS, nor any compounds with a measured global warming potential (GWP). Therefore, the use of Cold Fire will be less damaging to the atmosphere than continued use of Halon 1301, which has a GWP of 7,140 (Forster et al. 2007) and an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 15.9 (WMO 2011). Furthermore, Cold Fire has a significantly lower impact on the climate than other substitutes used in this sector, such as HCFC Blend A, HFC-227ea, and HFC-125, as shown in Table 2.

 Table 2.  Atmospheric Impacts of Cold Fire Compared to Other Flooding Agents
                                  Refrigerant
                        Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP)
                        Global Warming Potential (GWP)
                     Atmospheric Lifetime (ALT) in Years
                                   Cold Fire
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                  Halon 1301
                                    15.9[a]
                                   7,140[b]
                                     65[b]
                                HCFC Blend A[c]
                                   0.035[ad]
                                   1,546[b]
                                     NA[e]
                                   HFC-227ea
                                       0
                                   3,220[b]
                                    34.2[b]
                                    HFC-125
                                       0
                                   3,500[b]
                                     29[b]
[a] WMO (2010)
[b] IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Forster et al. 2007)
[c] HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75%), HCFC-22 (82%), HCFC-124 (9.5%), and D-limonene (3.75%).
[d] WMO (2007)
[e] NA= not available. Atmospheric lifetimes are not given for blends because the components separate in the atmosphere. The ALT for HCFC-123 is 1.3 years, HCFC-22 is 12 years, HCFC-124 is 5.8 years, and D-limonene ranges from less than a minute to a few hours (IPCC 4th Assessment Report [Forster et al. 2007] and WHO 1998).
POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
According to the MSDS, Cold Fire is not a primary ocular or skin irritant, and is not considered to be orally toxic. However, Cold Fire may irritate the eyes if it is sprayed directly into them. If contact with eyes occurs, immediately flush the eyes with water. In the case of dermal exposure, the skin should be rinsed with water. Should ingestion occur, the person should drink water. Inhalation is not expected to pose a concern, but removal to fresh air is recommended. When the PPE recommendations outlined in the MSDS for Cold Fire and Section 5.1 of this risk screen are followed, these potential health effects are unlikely to occur.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The potential for personnel exposure during manufacture, installation, and maintenance are examined in this section.  Discharge scenarios discussed are assumed to occur accidentally and not as the result of a fire.  In order to evaluate occupational exposure, EPA has evaluated the active compounds contained in Cold Fire.  The common application types, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval status, and associated hazards for these compounds are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Common Applications Types and FDA Approval Status of Cold Fire Constituents
                                  Constituent
                           Common Application Types
                           FDA Approval Status[a,b]
                              Associated Hazards

[a] FDA approvals are subject to use restrictions. Please see the cited regulation for further information.
[b] GRAS = Generally Recognized as Safe
[c] The application type and associated hazards noted in this row may not be representative of all chemicals in the category.
[d] NA = not available

   0.1.       Occupational Exposure during Manufacture
Cold Fire is not expected to pose a concern to workers during manufacture. Safety and precautionary measures make it unlikely that exposure would occur during manufacturing activities. Further, all the constituents exhibit low toxicity and are commonly used in food or cosmetic applications. For measures designed to minimize the hazards associated with a specific constituent, as noted in Table 2, the constituent's MSDS should be referenced. In order to protect workers from exposure to all Cold Fire constituents, EPA has outlined the following recommendations in accordance with established good manufacturing practices:
   *     OSHA Level D or higher PPE be used during handling of the substitute (e.g., goggles, gloves);
   *     Adequate ventilation should be in place;
   *     All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good industrial hygiene practices; and
   *     Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle the containers of Cold Fire or extinguishing units filled with the material.
Because worker exposure to the chemicals during the manufacturing process is unlikely, and the use of exposure controls and adherence to the appropriate occupational safety guidelines would be followed under good manufacturing practices, as mentioned above, EPA believes that manufacture of Cold Fire does not pose a significant risk to human health.
   0.2.       Occupational Exposure during Installation and Maintenance
Cold Fire is not expected to pose a significant risk to personnel during installation and maintenance activities, even in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the entire charge.  In such cases, oxygen displacement is not a concern, due to the physical characteristics of Cold Fire at discharge.   In addition, as noted above, all the constituents of Cold Fire exhibit low toxicity and are commonly used in food or cosmetic applications.  By adhering to safety guidelines, as mentioned previously in Section 4 and Section 5.1, the potential for worker exposures to Cold Fire during installation and maintenance will be unlikely.  It is recommended that the proposed safe handling training also focus on prevention of an inadvertent discharge.  In case of an inadvertent discharge, workers should immediately follow the instructions listed in the MSDS for Cold Fire.
END-USE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Cold Fire is not expected to pose significant risk to end-users when used as a flooding agent in normally occupied spaces. Cold Fire is primarily designed for use in the AFES-R in military vehicles such as the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.  For other ground vehicles with smaller volumes, the submitter has indicated that a smaller extinguisher size would be used.  For locations with lower air pressure (e.g., aircraft), the application density and performance of Cold Fire and thus, exposure pattern, is not expected to change. Based on these scenarios, EPA modeled the maximum exposure concentration of Cold-Fire that an end-user would be exposed to, assuming that the entire extinguisher is released and suspended in air. However, the resulting modeled concentration is an extremely conservative estimate. Cold Fire is released as an aqueous solution, and based on the small droplet size, the settling rate of Cold Fire is estimated to be on the order of several seconds. As such, the actual amount of Cold Fire suspended in air in the crew compartment upon release is expected to be significantly less than the modeled concentration. Further, the airflow rate is not considered in this assessment, which would further decrease the concentration of suspended Cold Fire.  Because of the low toxicity exhibited by Cold Fire and the low inhalation concentrations anticipated during discharge, Cold Fire is not considered to present a significant inhalation risk at end-use.

Dermal and ocular exposure to Cold Fire is not expected to pose a significant risk to end-users. In the event of exposure to Cold Fire, individuals are expected to follow the instructions prescribed in the proposed substitute's MSDS. Because individuals follow the precautionary measures described in Section 4 and Section 5.1, risk of exposure and irritation will be unlikely.
GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section screens potential risks to the general population from exposure to releases of Cold Fire and its constituents to ambient air, surface water, and solid waste.  Cold Fire is not expected to cause a significant risk to human health in the general population when used as flooding agent in normally occupied spaces. The only consumer exposure to Cold Fire will be during discharge of the extinguishers in occupied spaces. When the precautionary measures described in the proposed substitute's MSDS and Section 4 and Section 5.1 of this risk screen, no adverse health effects are expected.
7.1. 	Ambient Air
Cold Fire is not expected to pose a significant risk to human health in the general population in ambient air concentrations. The active constituents of Cold Fire are commonly used in cosmetics or foods, including some that are FDA-approved for use in food or FDA-classified as GRAS. Therefore, Cold Fire is not expected to be a safety concern for ambient air contamination.
7.2.  	Surface Water
Cold Fire is not expected to pose a significant risk to human health or the environment when proper disposal procedures in accordance to local, state, and federal requirements are followed. As discussed in the Background Document, the physicochemical properties of the majority of halon substitutes make it unlikely that the substitutes would be released to surface water as a result of use. In the case of Cold Fire, it is expected that all of the constituents would rapidly aerosolize during expulsion from the container and then settle as an oily water film on surfaces within the space (as opposed to becoming airborne and settling on a nearby stream). After settling, cleanup would involve washing/rinsing of surfaces. Cold Fire, as prepared and installed for use, is biodegradable and can be disposed of through municipal systems. (Concentrated Cold Fire, as manufactured prior to dilution, is significantly slower at breaking down and should not be released to waterways.) Further, during cleanup, discharges of Cold Fire are to be collected (e.g., mopped) and disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in accordance with local requirements. It is important to note that activation of the Cold Fire AFES-R is expected to be infrequent (i.e., in case of a fire emergency), where the greatest risk is exposure to fire and lack of oxygen.  EPA believes that when the disposal procedures are followed in accordance to local, state, and federal requirements, Cold Fire does not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment during end-use.
7.3. 	Solid Waste
No constituents of Cold Fire are considered to be hazardous waste under EPA regulations implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  During post-activation clean-up procedures, clean-up residues should be disposed of in accordance with requirements appropriate for those materials.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ASSESSMENT
Of the constituents of Cold Fire, none are considered to be a volatile organic compound (VOC). Therefore, emissions of Cold Fire are not considered to be a contributor to VOC emissions.
REFERENCESFIRE FREEZE WORLDWIDE, Inc.. 2012a. Response to Incomplete  SNAP Submission for Cold Fire in Total Flooding End-Use. May 24, 2012.
Fire Freeze Worldwide, Inc. 2012b. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for Cold Fire in Total Flooding End-Use. May 18, 2012.
Fire Freeze Worldwide,Inc.2012c. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for Cold Fire in Total Flooding End-Use. April 17, 2012.
Fire Freeze Worldwide, Inc 2011a. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for Cold Fire in Total Flooding End-Use. July 26, 2011.
Fire Freeze Worldwide, Inc2011b. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for Cold Fire in Total Flooding End-Use. June 14, 2011.
Fire Freeze Worldwide, Inc. 2011c. SNAP Submission to EPA for Cold Fire in Total Flooding End-Use. March 31, 2011.
EPA 1994. "Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-depleting Substances:  Fire Extinguishing and Protection (Halon Substitutes)," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1994.
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
OSHA. 1994. General description and discussion of the levels of protection and protective gear. 1910.120 App B. Last updated August 22, 1994. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9767

WHO (World Health Organization). 1998. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 5. Limonene. Prepared by A. Falk Filipsson, J. Bard, and S. Karlsson. 1998.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization), 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project -- Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17651-17652]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-101-000; PF16-5-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on March 27, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in
the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for its proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement
Project. Specifically, Transco proposes to: (i) Construct a 10.17-mile,
42-inch-diameter loop in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; (ii) construct
a 3.43-mile, 26-inch-diameter loop in Middlesex County, New Jersey;
(iii) construct a 23.49-mile, 26-inch-diameter loop in Middlesex
County, New Jersey and in New York State waters; (iv) add 21,902
horsepower (hp) at its existing Compressor Station 200 in Chester
County, Pennsylvania; (v) construct a new 32,000 hp compressor station
(Compressor Station 206) in Somerset County, New Jersey; and (vi)
construct various additional facilities. Transco states that the
Northeast Supply Enhancement Project will provide 400,000 dekatherms
per day of firm transportation service. Transco estimates the cost of
the project to be approximately $926.5 million, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site 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
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bill
Hammons, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, P.O. Box 1396,
Houston, Texas 77251, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On May 18, 2016, Commission staff granted Transco's request to
utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF16-5-000 to
staff activities involved in the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project.
Now, as of the March 27, 2017 application, the Pre-Filing Process for
this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP17-101-000, as noted in the caption of the
Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will 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 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this proposal. 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 FEIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    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 commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
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 in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2017.

    Dated: April 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07354 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P