[Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51815-51816]
[DOCID:fr05se08-48]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0191; FRL-8381-4]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act Process Improvement Workgroup; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) Process Improvement Workgroup will
hold its eleventh public meeting on September 23, 2008. An agenda for
this meeting is being developed. The agenda will include recent process
improvements to implement PRIA 2 such as electronic submission,
application tools and systems to track progress in meeting PRIA due
dates and in registration review, and will be posted on EPA's website.
The workgroup is developing advice and recommendations on topics
related to EPA's registration and registration review processes.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, from 1
p.m. to 4 p.m.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Conference Center, Lobby Level,
One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who are concerned about implementation
of PRIA 2, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Other
potentially affected entities may include but are not limited to
agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry trade
associations; environmental, consumer and farmworker groups; pesticide
users and growers; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal
governments; academia; public health organizations; food processors;
and the public. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0191. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket athttp://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility
are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access thisFederal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility of ensuring the safety of the American food supply,
protection and education of those who apply or are exposed to
pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and the general
protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential
risks

posed by pesticides. The PPDC was established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995,
for a 2-year term and has been renewed every 2 years since that time.
The PPDC provides advice and recommendations to OPP on a broad range of
pesticide regulatory, policy, and program implementation issues that
are associated with evaluating and reducing risks from the use of
pesticides. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC:
Pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental/public
interest and consumer groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide
user, grower and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/Tribal
governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations. Copies of the PPDC charter are filed with appropriate
committees of Congress and the Library of Congress and are available
upon request. Copies of the minutes of past meetings of this workgroup
are available on the internet athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/
pria/index.html.

III. How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting?

    This meeting will be open to the public and seating is available on
a first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to
register in advance of the meeting. Opportunity will be provided for
questions and comments by the public. Any person who wishes to file a
written statement may do so before or after the meeting by giving a
copy of the statement to the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. These statements will become part of the permanent
record and will be available for public inspection at the address
listed under Unit 1.B.1. Do not submit any information in your request
that is considered CBI.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: August 28, 2008.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-20594 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: July 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 32991-32993]
[DOCID:fr09jy09-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60224; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.72
Trading Differentials

July 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on June 29, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its option trading rules in order to
extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues (``Pilot
Program'') previously approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') through October 31, 2009. The text of the
proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy
of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange hereby proposes to extend the time period of the Pilot
Program \4\ which is currently scheduled to expire on July 3, 2009
through October 31, 2009. This filing does not propose any substantive
changes to the Pilot Program: all classes currently participating will
remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The
Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market
participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and
sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote
traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-55156 (January
23, 2007), 72 FR 4759 (February 21, 2007); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34-56568 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56422 (October 3,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange agrees to submit a report to the Commission that
includes data and written analysis of information collected from May 1,
2009 through August 31, 2009 which will be submitted by the close of
September 2009. The report will analyze the impact of the Pilot Program
on market quality and options systems capacity. This report will
include, but is not limited to: (1) Data and written analysis on the
number of quotations generated for options selected for the Pilot
Program; (2) an assessment of the quotation spreads for the options
selected for the Pilot Program; (3) an assessment of the impact of the
Pilot Program on the capacity of the NYSE Arca's automated systems; (4)
any capacity problems or other problems that arose related to the
operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them; and
(5) an assessment of trade through complaints that were sent by the
Exchange during the operation of the Pilot Program and how they were
addressed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \5\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \6\ in particular in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange
believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles
of trade by enabling public customers and other market participants to
express their true prices to buy and sell options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-
4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that the
Pilot Program offers market participants additional flexibility in
their investment choices, which can help promote a fair, orderly and
competitive market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will allow the Penny Pilot Program to continue
without interruption through October 31, 2009.\11\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78(c)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-61. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE,, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
NYSEArca-2009-61 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16186 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46235-46236]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2839-015]

Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments; Village of Lyndonville
Electric Department

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric license application
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-2839-015.
    c. Date filed: May 26, 2017.
    d. Applicant: Village of Lyndonville Electric Department.
    e. Name of Project: Great Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Passumpsic River, in the Town of Lyndon,
Caledonia County, Vermont. There are no federal or tribal lands within
the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Bill Humphrey, Village of Lyndonville
Electric Department, 119 Park Avenue, Lyndonville, VT 05851; (802) 626-
3366.
    i. FERC Contact: Bill Connelly,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: October 27, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659

(TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2839-015.
    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 is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The existing Great Falls Project consists of: (1) A 160-foot-
long, 32-foot-high curved, concrete dam with 2-foot-high flashboards;
(2) an approximately 12-acre impoundment having a storage capacity of
135-acre-feet at a normal full pond water surface elevation of 668.38
feet above mean sea level; (3) an 18.5-foot-wide headworks structure
with two headgates; (4) a headworks gate house; (5) an intake structure
and bypass pipe that are integral to the dam; (6) a 290-foot-long power
canal; (7) two sluice gates; (8) an intake gate house with two
trashracks; (9) a 200-foot-long metal penstock; (10) a 47-foot-long,
25-foot-wide powerhouse containing a 1,350-kilowatt (kW) turbine-
generator unit and a 40-foot-long, 40-foot-wide powerhouse containing
two 350-kW turbine-generator units, for a total capacity of 2,050-kW;
(11) a 350-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt (kV) above-ground generator lead
that connects the turbine-generator units to a step-up transformer;
(12) a 1.75-mile-long, 12.5-kV above-ground transmission line; and (13)
appurtenant facilities.
    The Village of Lyndonville Electric Department (Lyndonville)
operates the project in a run-of-river mode with an annual average
energy production of approximately 3,960 megawatt-hours. Lyndonville is
not proposing any changes in project operation. Lyndonville proposes to
continue to release a year-round minimum flow of 10 cfs (or inflow,
whichever is less) to the bypassed reach to maintain habitat for fish
and aquatic organisms and release a minimum flow of 75 cfs (or inflow,
whichever is less) from the powerhouse during project shutdowns to
protect fish and aquatic resources in the downstream reach. Lyndonville
proposes to install an automatic pond level control system to improve
control of impoundment water surface level fluctuations. Lyndonville
also proposes to develop a minimum flow monitoring plan to ensure
adequate flow is provided to the bypassed reach and downstream of the
powerhouse.
    Lyndonville also proposes to construct and maintain a new carry-in
boat access trail downstream of the tailrace, on the west bank of the
Passumpsic River, designate a new bank fishing area, and install a
designated parking area outside of the project gates along the access
road to the project. To ensure the adequacy of project recreation
facilities, Lyndonville proposes to conduct a Recreation Inventory, Use
and Needs Assessment within one year of completion of recreational
improvements. Finally, Lyndonville proposes to develop a Historic
Properties Management Plan to protect historic resources.
    m. A copy of the application 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
Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in Item H above.
    n. 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.
    o. Scoping Process:
    Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Great Falls Hydroelectric Project in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both
site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information on the Scoping Document 1 (SD1) issued
on September 27, 2017.
    Copies of SD 1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD 1 may be viewed on the
web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21268 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


April 26, 2004 NOTE SUBJECT: Meeting w/ CRWI Re Proposed MACT Rule FROM: Bob Holloway, OSW/ OSWER, USEPA TO: Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0022 On April 20, 2004, Mike Galbraith, Sasha Gerhard, and Bob Holloway, EPA, met with the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration to respond to questions clarifying provisions of the MACT rule for HWCs proposed on March 31, 2004. CRWI members raised several issues and OSW staff provided several responses.

1. FF Bag Leak Detector Response as an Operating Limit. Establishing an operating limit for FFs as the average bag leak detector response during the performance test is too stringent given that it is difficult to maximize PM emissions during performance test for a source equipped w/ a FF.

Response. Agree that this is a concern.

2. Compliance w/ Thermal Emission Concentration Based Standards. Compliance with a thermal emission concentration based standard will be difficult for sources that burn wastes with a relatively low heating value. Once a source documents compliance with the thermal emission concentration, could the feedrate limit be expressed as a mass feedrate ( lb/ hr) rather than a thermal feedrate ( lb/ MM Btu)?

Response. Agree that complying with a thermal concentration based feedrate may be problematic for wastes with relatively low heating value. Allowing compliance with a thermal emission standard based on a the mass feedrate achieved during the performance test would not, however, ensure compliance with the emission standard.

3. Handling Nondetect Emissions under a Thermal Emission Standard. Allowable emission concentrations under the thermal emission standards can be extremely low, below detection limits, for sources burning wastes at low firing rates or with low heating value. The Agency proposed to address the issue of a source not being able to document compliance b/ c emissions are below detection limits by determining a source to be in compliance if: ( 1) the sample time for each run was at least 3 hours; ( 2) the laboratory achieved the analytical detection limits for the method; and ( 3) the analyte was not detected during any run. If the analyte is detected in one run but not the other 2 runs, the proposal would require that the source assume the analyte was present at the detection limit for those runs. This is inconsistent with allowing averaging of runs to demonstrate compliance, and could result in failure to comply. But, the source may not be able to further control emissions ( and the rationale for doing so seems dubious) given that emissions are generally already below detection limits.

Response: Understand the concern.

4. PM Standard for Liquid Fuel Boilers. The PM standard for existing and new sources is different in the summary table presenting standards for all sources than in the preamble discussions specific to liquid fuel boilers.

Response. The standards presented in the liquid fuel boiler section of the preamble are likely to be correct and should match the numbers in the engineering support documents. We will notify CRWI which numbers are correct.

5. Bypassing Prior Approvals. Certain provisions of the rule ( e. g., alternative monitoring provisions of existing 63.1209( g)( 1) and proposed approval of the 112( d)( 4) risk demonstration) require prior approval before the source can undertake an action such as conducting the performance test or beginning compliance with alternative standards. Region and state permitting resources are stretched so thin, however, that permitting officials frequently do not respond to information provided by sources in time to grant or deny approvals of a requested action. Facilities can waste money by having to install equipment that would otherwise be waived by their alternative monitoring petition. In addition, they can face scheduling problems. Can such provisions be revised to allow the source to undertake the action without approval but with the knowledge that the source's prior actions may be deemed not be in compliance with the standards. Sources would use this provision only when comfortable that they are taking a reasonable and supportable action.

Response. Understand the issue and will consider how to address.

6. Site Specific Risk Assessments ( SSRAs)

Does the codification of omnibus authority change the way SSRA policy is currently implemented?

Response. Nothing is changed; only codified existing statutory authority for regulatory clarity and in response to CKRC's petition.

Why not include the SSRA policy in the codification?

Response. EPA does not feel it is appropriate because it would remove the flexibility for permitting authorities in their determinations. Also, we do not want the policy to be misconstrued as requiring SSRAs.

How will the new regulations be implemented in authorized versus non authorized states?

Response. It would depend on whether your unit is HSWA or non HSWA. The new regulations are proposed under HSWA and are considered to be no more stringent than the existing federal regulations which means authorized states do not have to pick them up.

Why did EPA propose this codification?

Response. Mainly, to respond to CKRC's petition requesting that, if EPA does not repeal the SSRA policy and guidance and but believes that SSRA's continue to be necessary, then EPA should promulgate the authority using notice and comment procedure.

7. CPT Plan and Public Notice. Why include a notice of at least 60 days prior to initiation of the test  it was not in the regulations before? ( CRWI pointed out that the 60 days advance notice creates problems when regulatory authorities have not approved the CPT plan until the last minute  it would push back the test date which would be very costly.)

Response. When we added more detail to the public notice requirements, we sought to fashion them after the RCRA public notice requirements for the trial burn plan. We thought the 60 days was a reasonable period of time to allow the public to view the plan. We now understand that many facilities' CPT plans are not being approved before the deadline and will reconsider whether the 60 day requirement is warranted.

8. New Streamline Permit Modification Procedure. Can EPA include language that will deem the permit modification request approved if the permit authority does not respond within the allotted time frame?

Response. As discussed in " 5" above, we understand the issue and will consider how best to address it.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23238-23239]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0249]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Washington State Department of
Transportation Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal,
mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the
safe and rapid movement of University of Washington Husky football game
spectators. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on April 25,
2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0249] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.''

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington State Department of
Transportation has requested that the Montlake Bridge remain in the
closed-to-navigation position to accommodate the rapid movement of
highway traffic associated with the University of Washington Football
game on April 25, 2015. The Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington
Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in the closed position provides 30
feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel and 46
feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60-feet of the bridge;
vertical clearance references to the Mean Water Level of Lake
Washington. Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance
with 33 CFR 117.1051(e) which requires the bridge to open on signal,
except that the bridge need not open for vessels less than 1,000 gross
tons between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. This deviation period is from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
April 25, 2015. The deviation allows the bascule span of the Montlake
Bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position from 10 a.m. to 3
p.m. on April 25, 2015. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship
Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 20, 2015.
Steve Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-09643 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 23557]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1872-000]

Tolna Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Tolna Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 5, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10694 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P