July 8, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	A bug fixed in GEM manual transmission efficiency

FROM:	Houshun Zhang, OTAQ/ASD

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-xxxx-yyyy

A bug was identified recently in calculating the manual transmission mechanical efficiency.  In the GEM design, it is supposed that all gear mechanical efficiency should be set to 96% except the direct drive ratio with 1:1, which should be set to 98%.  However, GEM was set 98% to gear ratio number less than 1, and all others are 96%.  This is incorrect.  Consequently, the modification on GEM was conducted, making sure that only gear ratio of 1:1 is set to 98% and all others are 96%.

It should be pointed out that this bug only affects the manual transmission and it doesn't affect all of other transmissions.


Page 1 of 4 Recommendations from Commenters on the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/ 2003 February 21, 2003 Several commenters on the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/ 2003 identified specific industrial categories that EPA should consider as part of the planning process for future effluent guideline development or revision. Specific pollutants were also identified as causes of concern.

Background: In June, 2002, EPA proposed its Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/ 2003. Recognizing that this Plan was likely to be the last to be published under the terms of a Consent Decree, the Agency included in the proposal a solicitation for comments on the future of the Effluent Guidelines program, including recommendations on industrial categories for which new or revised effluent guidelines should be considered. Comments from the Clean Water Network ( CWN) and the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority ( MWRA) included industry specific and pollutant specific recommendations. DuPont Engineering Technology also provided a pollutant specific recommendation. Each of these categories and the information submitted by the commenter is presented below. The pollutant specific recommendations are also included. These comments were originally discussed in the comment response document, stored in the EPA's public record for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/ 2003 item number 33.

INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITHOUT GUIDELINES ( ALPHABETICALLY)

Coalbed Methane Development CWN identified coalbed methane development as an industry which has had significant water quality impacts in the region in which it is prevalent. In their comments, CWN states " The practice of ` dewatering' coal seams in order to mine methane results in massive amounts of polluted water being discharged into neighboring waterbodies, negatively affecting wildlife and fisheries in many parts of the West. While EPA Region 8 has taken action on this issue, we believe EPA needs to develop national effluent guidelines."

Cruise Ships CWN identified cruise ships as an industry which has had significant water quality impacts in their discharges of both wastewater and graywater. In their comments, CWN writes " EPA is currently preparing its response to a 2000 petition filed by Bluewater Network and 42 other environmental organizations documenting the agency's intent to address pollution from cruise ships. Today's ships can transport more than 5,000 passengers and generate more than 11 million gallons of wastewater every day, as well as carry significant amounts of hazardous chemicals from onboard printing, photo processing, and dry cleaning operations. We urge EPA to expedite the development of effluent limitations ( mandated by Title XIV of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act ( H. R. 4577/ 106th Congress), ` Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations') and to apply these limits to cruise ship discharges in all U. S. waters." Page 2 of 4 Dental Facilities MWRA identified dental facilities as an industry sector that is a significant source of mercury. In their comments, they state " At the same time that MWRA began trying to reduce mercury from medical facilities, it also began studying mercury in discharges from dental facilities. In 1997, MWRA completed a study that estimated that dental facilities contribute at least 13% of the mercury in MWRA's system, possibly much more. Subsequent studies in many other communities have reached similar conclusions. Dental facilities are now recognized as a major nationwide source of mercury discharges to sewage treatment systems." MWRA has provided EPA with a number of supporting documents, including data, to support this recommendation.

In addition, MWRA states " Moreover, cost effective control technology is readily available for dental facilities. Recently, St. Paul, Minnesota published the results of tests of devices that remove dental amalgam from wastewater discharges. St. Paul found that installing such devices in dental clinics reduced the mercury loadings at one of its treatment plants by more than 40%. St. Paul tested several commercially available devices and found that all of them are more than 90% effective in removing mercury from dental wastestreams. The American Dental Association recently tested 11 commercially available devices and found that all of them are more than 95% effective in removing amalgam solids, using the test established by the International Standards Organization ( ISO 11143). The ADA's results also showed that mercury concentrations in the effluent from these devices could be highly variable, suggesting that concentration based effluent standards might not be the best approach to this technology. However, the study did establish that effective technology exists, and development of national effluent guideline could be undertaken. MWRA therefore believes that this could be an appropriate sector for federal effluent guidelines."

INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH GUIDELINES ( ALPHABETICALLY)

Coal Mining point source category CWN identified the coal mining point source category as an effluent guideline which requires revision. This a source category had an effluent guideline promulgated in 1985, portions of which were revised in 2002. In their comments CWN writes, "... the rainfall exemptions for coal mining in current ELGs. ... allow for relaxation of limits as soon as it rains. The primary control of mine drainage is the settlement basin which doesn't work very well when it rains. EPA should consider effluent treatment options and/ or an increase basin size requirements."

Hospitals & Related Health Care Facilities MWRA identified hospitals and related health care facilities as an industry sector that is a significant source of mercury. This a source category had an effluent guideline promulgated in 1976, which was revised in 1989 and 1995. In their comments, they state, " MWRA's experience with hospitals began in the early 1990s, when MWRA began attempting to secure compliance with an action level for mercury of 1 part per billion. As a result of several years of co ordinated effort among the medical facilities in MWRA's Region, the average medical facility's mercury discharge fell by 83%, from Page 3 of 4 approximately 22 ug/ l ( parts per billion) in 1994 to 2 ug/ l during calendar year 1999. Today, the majority of the facilities have been able to comply with this limit, and MWRA expects most of the remaining facilities to achieve compliance in the near future. ... MWRA has found that there are also a significant potentials for cost effective pollution prevention strategies, as well as economically feasible treatment options. There are innovative technology and regulatory strategies for these sectors that may be more effective than end of pipe treatment technology, including group permitting and self certification for small facilities, and pooling of information on mercury containing products to facilitate product substitution or special handling to eliminate discharges." MWRA has provided EPA with a number of supporting documents, including data, to support this recommendation.

Ore Mining and Dressing point source category CWN identified ore mining and dressing point source category as an industry which has had significant water quality impacts in the region in which it is prevalent. This source category had an effluent guideline promulgated in 1982 and revised in 1988, In their comments, CWN writes " In 1998 Clean Water Network members with the Western Action Mining Project and Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund submitted comments to EPA with regards to EPA's decision to substantially reduce the applicability of Part 440 ELGs to discharges from waste rock piles, overburden piles and other sources of water pollution. EPA has not responded to that request. Today we request again that EPA again include seepage from waste dumps in its Part 440 ELG definition of ` mine drainage'. EPA has the data and resources to regulate seepage from waste dumps."

POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ( ALPHABETICALLY)

Lead MWRA identified lead as a pollutant which the EPA should address through effluent guidelines. In their comments, they state " MWRA is writing to express its hope that in developing its new strategy, [...] focussing its future efforts particularly on sectors that are known sources of persistent bioaccumulating toxins, particularly ... lead."

Mercury MWRA identified mercury as a pollutant which the EPA should address through effluent guidelines. In their comments, they note " MWRA is writing to express its hope that in developing its new strategy, [...] focussing its future efforts particularly on sectors that are known sources of persistent bioaccumulating toxins, particularly mercury..."

Nutrients CWN identified nutrients as a pollutant which the Agency should address through effluent guidelines. In their comments, CWN writes "[ The EPA should] require wastewater treatment plants to use Biological Nutrient Removal ( BNR) as Best Available Technology for wastewater treatment plants. By 2004 all states must adopt nutrient criteria into state water quality standards. Requiring BNR would both reduce nutrient pollution problems and would help states to meet new nutrient criteria." They also note "[ The EPA should] Require pollutant limitations for ... nutrients for publicly owned treatment works. Again, states will soon be required to adopt nutrient criteria by 2004 ... Requiring ELGs to keep pace with policy decisions Page 4 of 4 makes sense." Although regulating publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) is not within the jurisdiction of the effluent guidelines program, EPA intends to consider biological nutrient removal ( BNR) as an option when it evaluates wastewater treatment.

Pathogens CWN identified pathogens, specifically bacteria and viruses, as a pollutant which the Agency should address through effluent guidelines. In their comments, CWN writes "[ The EPA should] require pollutant limitations for bacteria, [ and] viruses... for publicly owned treatment works. ... states will also soon be required to adopt EPA's new bacteria criteria. Requiring ELGs to keep pace with policy decisions makes sense." Regulating publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) is not within the jurisdiction of the effluent guidelines program.

Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic Compounds ( PBTs) DuPont Engineering Technology identified persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic ( PBTs) compounds as a category of pollutants that EPA should address through effluent guidelines. In their comments, they write, " Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic ( PBTs) compounds should be the primary focus in terms of unregulated pollutants. As EPA is well aware, PBTs, as well as nutrients and silt forming pollutants are the constituents of concern in most remaining impaired water quality segments." In addition, MWRA writes, " MWRA is writing to express its hope that in developing its new strategy, [...] focussing its future efforts particularly on sectors that are known sources of persistent bioaccumulating toxins, particularly mercury and lead."

Short term Followup: EPA will contact each of the commenters to collect the supporting data on which they based their recommendations.

Long term Followup: Data collected from commenters will be reviewed and analyzed for use in determining whether a recommended industry will be investigated in more depth in the second phase of the planning process.


[Federal Register: October 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59756]
[DOCID:fr11oc06-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-613-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing,
with an effective date of November 1, 2006.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16770 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42462-42464]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17674]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9929-13]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://
www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Director, Registration
Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticide
and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD), main telephone number: (703)
305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for
each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the

end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 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 so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What Action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 80 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the
requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any
particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this document contain the data or information
prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to
evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may
be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide
petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

    PP 5F8355. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569,
Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide, EPTC, (S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate), in or
on grass, grown for seed, forage at 0.6 parts per million (ppm) and
grass, grown for seed, hay at 0.5 ppm. An analytical method using gas
chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection is used to measure
and evaluate the chemical, EPTC, and its hydroxy metabolites. Contact:
RD.
    PP 5F8365. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0375). Makhteshim Agan of North
America, Inc. (d/b/a ADAMA), 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh,
NC 27604, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide, fluensulfone, in or on tomato, paste at 1
parts per million (ppm). The LC-MS/MS residue analytical method is used
to measure and evaluate the chemical fluensulfone (to be measured by
residues of 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-end-1-sulfonic acid, expressed as the
stoichiometric equivalent of fluensulfone). Contact: RD.
    PP 3F8220. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0114). EPA issued a notice in the
Federal Register of May 23, 2014, (79 FR 29729) concerning pending
filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on
various commodities. This document corrects the notification for
petition PP 3F8220 by adding the missing entry for dried fruiting
vegetable at 0.9 ppm. The original notice was for E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company (DuPont), 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898,
which requested to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues
of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-(4-{4-[(5RS)-5-(2,6-
difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-1,2-oxazol-3-yl]-1,3-thiazol-2-
yl{time{time} -1-piperidyl)-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-
1-yl] ethanone. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances

    PP 5F8346. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569,
Yuma, AZ, 85366 requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448 for
residues of the insecticide, hexythiazox, in or on cotton, gin
byproducts to 15 parts per million (ppm) and cotton, undelinted seed to
0.5 ppm. The high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass
spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS) analytical method is used to measure
and evaluate residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the
PT-1-3 moiety. Contact: RD.
    PP 5F8356. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0338). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569,
Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448 for
residues of the insecticide, hexythiazox, in or on fruit, citrus group
10 to 0.6 parts per million (ppm) and citrus, oil to 26 ppm. The high
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric
detection (LC-MS/MS) analytical method is used to measure and evaluate
residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the PT-1-3
moiety. Contact: RD.

Tolerance Exemptions

    PP IN-10750. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0363). Scientific & Regulatory
Solutions, L.L.C., 3450 Old Washington Rd # 303, Waldorf, MD 20602, on
behalf of SNF, Inc., 1 Chemical Plant Road, Riceboro, GA 31321,
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of 2-propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-propenyl-, chloride,
homopolymer (CAS Reg. No. 26062-79-3) when used as an ingredient in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment and food processing
equipment and utensils in accordance with 40 CFR 180.940(a). The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.
    PP IN-10815. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0350). Keller and Heckman, 1001 G

Street NW., Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001 on behalf of C.P.
Kelco U.S., Inc., 3100 Cumberland Blvd., Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30339
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of D-glucurono-D-gluco-6-deoxy-L-mannan, acetate, calcium
magnesium potassium sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 595585-15-2) when used as
an inert ingredient applied to growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerance Exemption

    PP 4F8342. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099). SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's
Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192 (on behalf of bio-ferm GmbH,
Technologiezentrum Tulln, Technopark 1, Tulln, 3430, Austria), requests
to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
180.1312 for residues of the fungicide Aureobasidium pullulans strains
DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because the petitioner is
submitting a petition to establish a postharvest exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and, therefore, an analytical method is not
required. Contact: BPPD.

New Inert Tolerance

    PP IN-10818. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0395). Itaconix Corporation, 2 Marin
Way, Stratham, NH 03885, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of butanedioic acid, 2-
methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 26099-89-8), when
used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR
180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: July 8, 2015.
Jennifer Mclain,
Acting, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-17674 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 28486]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER17-1812-000.
    Applicants: Oregon Clean Energy, LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Competitive Entry Exemption
Deadline and Expedited Action of Oregon Clean Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20170613-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1816-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of a conforming Small Generator
Interconnection Service Agreement No. 2090 of New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170614-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1817-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tie-Line Facilities
Agreement True-Up Amendment Brea Power II, LLC to be effective 8/14/
2017.
    Filed Date: 6/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170614-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1818-000.
    Applicants: Triton Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be
effective 6/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170614-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1819-000.
    Applicants: Celerity Energy Partners San Diego LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be
effective 6/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170614-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/17.

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

    Dated: June 14, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13006 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Memorandum reviewing elements of ventilation operating costs. ERG. May 28, 2014

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

		MEMORANDUM

To:	Robert Burt, Robert Stone, Bob Blicksilver, OSHA
From:	John Eyraud and Chet Fenton, ERG
Date:	May 28, 2014
Subject:	Review of operating costs for ventilation systems
*************************************************************************************
ERG reviewed its estimates of the operating costs of ventilation systems that will be needed to achieve compliance with the proposed regulation. ERG had previously developed several sets of ventilation operating costs to reflect the principal scenarios relevant for the affected firms. ERG considered 24-hour operation and operation for 60 hours per week. ERG also considered scenarios with and without recirculation of air. For facilities that are not recirculating air, ERG previously included the costs for both heating and cooling. The average cost per cfm was estimated at $2.22. With capital costs ($12.83 per cfm), and maintenance costs at 10 percent of capital ($1.28 per cfm), the operating and maintenance total was $3.51 per cfm. Adding the annualized capital cost ($1.83) brought the total to $5.34 per cfm.
Industry criticized these estimates although no detailed alternative estimates were given. Some industry commenters, and particularly the American Foundry Society, noted that their operating experience suggested much higher operating costs, exceeding $25 per cfm. A firm commenting to the docket for the American Chemistry Council, URS, used an estimate of ventilation operating and maintenance costs of $5.50 per cfm in 2009 dollars (URS, 2014).
Based on the literature search we have conducted, there are no broadly applicable or definitive estimates of average overall ventilation operating costs in industry that were identified. We have noted some statements in the literature that suggest fairly modest operating costs are often applicable, but these estimates do not appear to be based on any surveys of operating experience. For example, a 2004 discussion of ventilation systems referred to an estimate of $2 per cfm for ventilation operating costs for general industrial applications (Burgess, Ellenbecker, Trietman, 2004).
The previous estimates used the prevailing electricity and natural gas prices prevailing in 2009. ERG has retrieved the most recently published prices for these energy inputs. These are derived from Department of Energy monthly reports (EIA, 2014a and EIA, 2014b).
Based partly on testimony during the public hearings and further analysis by ERG staff, ERG suggests several revisions to the previous estimates. First, ERG would update the energy input prices to the current levels. Because there has not been any inflation in the input prices, however, the updating of prices is likely to have a small effect on the difference between the industry and ERG estimates.
ERG had previously estimated that overall, a major share of establishments in industries with silica exposures would recirculate air. Because this is a low cost option, this estimate reduced the overall operating cost average. While there is some recirculation of air in industry, including in foundries, ERG now believes that perhaps a significantly smaller share of industrial facilities are recirculating air than previously estimated. In a series of case studies of foundry ventilation approaches, 1 of 4 case studies describes the recirculation of air (Scholz, 2007). In a conversation with a consulting mechanical engineer, however, the engineer noted that recirculation of air is not common in industrial settings (Creed, 2014).
ERG's previous estimates included the costs for cooling buildings. Although providing cooling for industrial facilities is becoming more common, the public hearings testimony indicated that most industrial facilities are not cooled. Our consulting engineer concurred that cooling is generally not provided in industrial buildings. Thus, the removal of cooling costs would appear to be warranted (Creed, 2014). The consultant, however, could not estimate an average range for ventilation operating costs.
ERG did not previously include the cost of tempering the makeup air that must be added to offset the air ventilated to the dust collector and eventually outside. This change will improve the accuracy of the estimate of the recirculating air costs.

References
Burgess, William A, Michael J Ellenbecker, Richard D Treitman. 2004. Ventilation for Control of the Work Environment. Second Edition.

Creed, Bill. 2014. Telephone discussion between William Creed, Engineered Systems, Inc., and John Eyraud and Karen Capwell of ERG. May 23.

Scholz, Robert C. 2007. Control of Silica Exposure in Foundries. American Foundry Society. AFS Safety and Health Committee.

US. Energy Information Administration. February, 2014a. Electricity Prices. Electricity Monthly.  Release date April 22, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_es1a

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014b. Natural Gas Prices. Release date April 30, 2014.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_nus_a.htm

URS, 2014. Silica PEL Operating Cost Model. Excel. OSHA Silica Docket.


13298 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2003 / Notices Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   6522 Filed 3   18   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OEI   2002   0011; FRL   7469   4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 2083.01 to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Estimating the Value of Improvements to Coastal Waters   A Pilot Study of A Coastal Water Valuation Survey. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 18, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nicole Owens, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Mail Code 1809T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 566   2302; fax number: ( 202) 566   2338; e mail address: owens. nicole@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 28, 2002 ( 67 FR 43592), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OEI 2002   0011, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is ( 202) 566   1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to oei. docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: Estimating the Value of Improvements to Coastal Waters   A Pilot Study of A Coastal Valuation Survey ( EPA ICR Number 2083.01). This is a request for a new collection. Abstract: This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is for a pilot survey being conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) National Center for Environmental Economics ( NCEE). The purpose of the pilot survey is to conduct research on and test various aspects of a computerized stated preference survey designed to estimate willingness to pay for water quality improvements in coastal waters. Specifically, we will:   Test the quality and effectiveness of the computerized survey instrument in yielding robust estimates for both use and non use values of improvements to coastal water quality;   Test the effect of the use of color in computerized survey instruments;   Test the appropriateness of the design values used in the choice questions;   Test the effect of a $ 5 incentive on the response rate;   Test the effectiveness of the survey administration mode for periodic, panel surveys, and   Test the effectiveness of the survey administration mode for environmental surveys. The subject of the survey was chosen for a variety of reasons. First, at this time, no suitable information exists that will allow the estimation of the benefits of statewide or national changes in coastal water quality. Existing studies focus on estimating recreational ( use) values for very specific reaches of coastal waters, thus limiting the use of the resulting estimates for benefit transfer and ignoring non use values completely ( e. g., Parsons et al. ( 2000) and Koaru, 1995). Second, the results of this survey will complement those from an ongoing freshwater quality survey ( USEPA, 2000). Currently, States, tribes, and other jurisdictions measure water quality by determining if water bodies are clean enough to support basic uses, such as swimming, fishing, and aquatic life. In keeping with these definitions of water quality, the survey will provide estimates of willingness to pay ( WTP) for more fishable and swimmable coastal and estuarine waters as well as healthier marine and estuarine aquatic environments. In the valuation portion of the survey, respondents will be asked a series of five questions in which they are asked to compare two programs with the status quo. The programs each affect water quality for the various uses in different ways and cost varying amounts to implement. Analysis of the resulting data will yield WTP estimates for improvements to each of the attributes. Further development of the survey cannot be completed without a pilot survey. The pilot survey will take place in California using a computerized survey instrument. The survey instrument is specific to the state of California and, depending upon the results of the pilot survey, may be used VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 09 Mar 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19MRN1. SGM 19MRN1 13299 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2003 / Notices to estimate willingness to pay for water quality improvements for the three specific uses noted above. Once the pilot survey is complete and EPA is convinced of the adequacy of the questionnaire, EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics hopes to develop parallel versions of the survey instrument for the remaining 20 coastal states in the contiguous United States as well as a version for inland states. The coastal state versions of the survey will elicit resident's willingness to pay for coastal water improvements within the respondent's home state. The inland version of the survey will elicit willingness to pay for coastal water improvements generally. Together these data will provide valuable information to estimate improvements to coastal waters that may improve the quality of cost benefit analyses and decisionmaking at EPA. The pilot survey is designed to collect information using Knowledge Networks, a survey research firm with a prerecruited panel of individuals throughout the United States who complete surveys using WebTV. We are requesting permission to conduct a pilot survey of 600 respondents in California. It should be noted, however, that no expectations have been formed regarding the administration mode for future pilots or surveys using this or parallel survey instruments. While we expect to continue using a selfadministered computerized format, we plan to explore alternative modes of administration. The only burden imposed by the pilot survey on respondents will be the time required to complete the survey. Based upon a limited number of cognitive pretest interviews, the survey developers estimate that this will involve an average of 30 minutes per respondents. With a total of 600 respondents for the pilot survey this involves a total of 150 hours. Based on an average hourly rate of $ 22.15 ( including employer costs of all employee benefits), the survey developers expect that the average perrespondent cost for the pilot survey will be $ 11.08 and the corresponding onetime total cost to all respondents will be $ 6645.00. This information collection does not involve any special equipment, thus, respondents will not incur any capital or operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs. Responses to the pilot survey will be voluntary. Typically, panel members are free to choose whether or not to respond to any particular survey as long as they meet survey quotas set in their agreement with the research firm. The survey will fully conform to federal regulations   specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U. S. C. 552a), the Hawkins Stafford Amendments of 1988 ( Pub. L. 100   297), and the Computer Security Act of 1987. The pilot survey data will be collected and stored electronically by the survey research firm, and all identifying information will be removed by the survey research firm prior to transfer to EPA. EPA will perform all data analyses used to determine the efficacy of this survey instrument for estimating the values associated with improved coastal water quality. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1  2 hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Individuals living in the State of California. Estimated Number of Respondents: 600. Frequency of Response: 1. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 300 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 6645, includes $ 0 annualized capital or O& M costs.

Dated: March 3, 2003.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   6579 Filed 3   18   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ RCRA   2003   0008 ; FRL   7469   3]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission of EPA ICR No. 1381.06 ( OMB No. 2050   0122) for OMB Review; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting   Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for 40 CFR Part 258   Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, ICR # 1381.06, OMB Control Number 2050   0122, Active ICR OMB Expiration Date: 08/ 31/ 2003. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Office of Solid Waste, ( 5306W), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9037; fax number: ( 703) 308   8686; email address: dufficy. craig@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. The groups affected by the requirements in part 258 are owners or operators of new Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( MSWLF), existing MSWLFs, and lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs. These owners or operators could include Federal, State, and Local governments, and private waste management companies. Facilities in the following SIC codes may be affected by this rule listed in the table below:

SIC Code/ Affected Entity 922 Local governments 495 Sanitary services 282 Industrial inorganic chemicals 281 Industrial organic chemicals 287 Miscellaneous VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 09 Mar 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19MRN1. SGM 19MRN1


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 4044]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2727-000]

Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC.; Notice of Authorization for
Continued Project Operation

    On December 30, 2015, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC., licensee for
the Ellsworth Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New
License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's
regulations thereunder. The Ellsworth Hydroelectric Project facility is
located on the Union River in Hancock County, Maine.
    The license for Project No. 2727 was issued for a period ending
December 31, 2017. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2727 is issued to
the licensee for a period effective January 1, 2018 through December
31, 2018 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
December 31, 2018, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the licensee, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC., is
authorized to continue operation of the Ellsworth Hydroelectric
Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for
a subsequent license.

    Dated: January 19, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01588 Filed 1-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68141-68142]
[DOCID:fr04de07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12867-000]

FFP Project 9, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No: 12867-000.
    c. Date Filed: July 25, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 9, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Carrollton Bend Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, Louisiana. The project uses no dam
or impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 9, LLC, 69 Bridge
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests and comments:
60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12867-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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. Competing Application: Project No. 12833-000, Date Filed: July
23, 2007, Date Issued: October 3, 2007, Due Date: December 2, 2007.
    l. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1)
950 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 19 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 9, LLC's project would
have an average annual generation of 83.22 gigawatt-hours and be sold
to a local utility.
    m. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
h. above.
    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    o. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the

specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR
4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested
person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later
than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular
application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform
with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    q. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    r. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    s. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments 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 comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    t. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any
notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in
the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    u. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23429 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8879-8881]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0460]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, GU

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a recurring safety
zone for navigable waters within Cocos Lagoon. This safety zone will
encompass the designated swim course for the Cocos Crossing swim event
in the waters of Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam. Race participants, chase
boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt from the safety zone.
Entry of persons or vessels into the safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Guam. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0460 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Robert Davis,
Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Cocos Crossing swim event is a recurring annual event that
occurs on the Sunday before Memorial Day. We have established safety
zones for this swim event in past years.
    The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of the
participants and the navigable waters in the safety zone

before, during, and after the scheduled swim event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port (COTP) is proposing to establish a safety
zone from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. annually on the Sunday before Memorial
Day unless delayed for weather for the Cocos Crossing swimming event.
This safety zone is necessary to protect all persons and vessels
participating in this marine event from potential safety hazards
associated with vessel traffic in the area. Race participants, chase
boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt from the safety zone.
Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at
the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will
impact a small designated area of the Cocos Lagoon for approximately 7
hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule
would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting approximately 7 hours that would prohibit entry within
100-yards for swim participants. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without

jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1418 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1418  Safety Zone; Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, GU

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters within a
100-yard radius of race participants in Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam.
Race participants, chase boats and organizers of the event will be
exempt from the safety zone.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Guam in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all persons and vessel traffic,
except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated on-scene
representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the
COTP to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Persons and Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate
within the safety zone must contact the COTP or an on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or an on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or an on-scene representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced on the
Sunday before Memorial Day from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. annually, unless
the event is delayed or cancelled due to weather. The Coast Guard will
provide advance notice of enforcement and a broadcast notice to
mariners to inform public of specific date.

    Dated: February 4, 2021.
Joshua M. Empen,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2021-02751 Filed 2-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30181-30182]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11380]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0050; FRL-9946-39-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Interstate Transport of Lead and Nitrogen Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submittal to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements.
The EPA is approving the submittal as meeting the requirements that
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in any other state.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0050. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On October 20, 2015, Oregon made a submittal to address the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
multiple NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. On
March 11, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the submittal as meeting
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS (81 FR 12849). An

explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the
submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the
proposal and will not restated here. The public comment period for the
proposal ended on April 11, 2016. The EPA received no comments.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Oregon's October 20, 2015 submittal as meeting
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements
for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The remainder of the
submittal, with respect to the 2010 sulfur dioxide and 2012 fine
particulate matter NAAQS, will be addressed in separate, future
actions.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 15, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 4, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1991 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1991  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) The EPA approves Oregon's October 20, 2015 submittal as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 lead
and 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2016-11380 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P