[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35707-35709]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0149; PDA-40(R)]

Hazardous Materials: The State of Washington Crude Oil by Rail--
Vapor Pressure Requirements

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Public Notice and Invitation to comment.

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

SUMMARY: Interested parties are invited to comment on an application by
the State of North Dakota and the State of Montana for an
administrative determination as to whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law preempts the State of Washington's rules relating to
the volatility of crude oil received in the state.

DATES: Comments received on or before August 23, 2019 and rebuttal
comments received on or before September 23, 2019 will be considered
before an administrative determination is issued by PHMSA's Chief
Counsel. Rebuttal comments may discuss only those issues raised by
comments received during the initial comment period and may not discuss
new issues.

ADDRESSES: North Dakota and Montana's application and all comments
received may be reviewed in the Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The application and
all comments are available on the U.S. Government Regulations.gov
website: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments must refer to Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0149 and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    A copy of each comment must also be sent to (1) Wayne Stenehjem,
Attorney General, The State of North Dakota, Office of the Attorney
General, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 125, Bismarck, ND 58505-
0040, and (2) Tim Fox, Attorney General, The State of Montana, Office
of the Attorney General, Justice Building, Third Floor, 215 North
Sanders, Helena, MT 59620-1401. A certification that a copy has been
sent to these persons must also be included with the comment. (The
following format is suggested: I certify that copies of this comment
have been sent to Mr. Stenehjem and Mr. Fox at the addresses specified
in the Federal Register.'')
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing a comment submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
    A subject matter index of hazardous materials preemption cases,
including a listing of all inconsistency rulings and preemption
determinations, is available through PHMSA's home page at http://phmsa.dot.gov. From the home page, click on ``Hazardous Materials
Safety,'' then on ``Standards & Rulemaking,'' then on ``Preemption
Determinations'' located on the right side of the page. A paper copy of
the index will be provided at no cost upon request to Mr. Lopez, at the
address and telephone number set forth in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Lopez, Office of Chief Counsel
(PHC-10), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590; telephone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Application for a Preemption Determination

    The State of North Dakota and the State of Montana have applied to
PHMSA for a determination whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts the State
of Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil By
Rail--Vapor Pressure. Specifically, North Dakota and Montana allege the
law, which purports to regulate the volatility of crude oil transported
in Washington state for loading and unloading, amounts to a de facto
ban on Bakken \1\ crude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to the applicants, North Dakota and Montana are
home to the Bakken Shale Formation, a subsurface formation within
the Williston Basin. It is one of the top oil-producing regions in
the country and one of the largest oil producers in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Dakota and Montana present two main arguments for why they
believe Washington's law should be preempted. First, North Dakota and
Montana contend that the law's prohibition on the loading or unloading
of crude oil with more than 9 psi vapor pressure poses obstacles to the
HMTA because compliance with the law can only be accomplished by (1)
pretreating the crude oil prior to loading the tank car; (2) selecting
an alternate mode of

transportation; or (3) redirecting the crude oil to facilities outside
Washington state. Accordingly, North Dakota and Montana say these
avenues for complying with the law impose obstacles to accomplishing
the purposes of the HMTA. Similarly, they contend that the law's pre-
notification requirements are an obstacle. Last, North Dakota and
Montana contend that Washington's law is preempted because aspects of
the law are not substantively the same as the federal requirements for
the classification and handling of this type of hazardous material.
    In summary, North Dakota and Montana contend the State of
Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil By Rail--
Vapor Pressure, should be preempted because:
     It is an obstacle to the federal hazardous material
transportation legal and regulatory regime; and
     It is not substantively the same as the federal
regulations governing the classification and handling of crude oil in
transportation.

II. Federal Preemption

    Section 5125 of 49 U.S.C. contains express preemption provisions
relevant to this proceeding. As amended by Section 1711(b) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2319), 49
U.S.C. 5125(a) provides that a requirement of a State, political
subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe is preempted--unless the non-
Federal requirement is authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants
a waiver of preemption under section 5125(e)--if (1) complying with the
non-Federal requirement and the Federal requirement is not possible; or
(2) the non-Federal requirement, as applied and enforced, is an
obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out the Federal requirement.
    These two sentences set forth the ``dual compliance'' and
``obstacle'' criteria that PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and
Special Programs Administration, had applied in issuing inconsistency
rulings prior to 1990, under the original preemption provision in the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). Public Law 93-633 Sec.
112(a), 88 Stat. 2161 (1975). The dual compliance and obstacle criteria
are based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions on preemption. Hines v.
Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v.
Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, Inc., 435 U.S.
151 (1978).
    Subsection (b)(1) of 49 U.S.C. 5125 provides that a non-Federal
requirement concerning any of the following subjects is preempted--
unless authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants a waiver of
preemption--when the non-Federal requirement is not ``substantively the
same as'' a provision of Federal hazardous material transportation law,
a regulation prescribed under that law, or a hazardous materials
security regulation or directive issued by the Department of Homeland
Security. The five subject areas include: the designation, description,
and classification of hazardous material; the packing, repacking,
handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material; the
preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to
hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents,
and placement of those documents; the written notification, recording,
and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of
hazardous material and other written hazardous materials transportation
incident reporting involving State or local emergency responders in the
initial response to the incident; and the designing, manufacturing,
fabricating, inspecting, marking, maintaining, reconditioning,
repairing, or testing a package, container, or packaging component that
is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material in commerce.
    To be ``substantively the same,'' the non-Federal requirement must
conform ``in every significant respect to the Federal requirement.
Editorial and other similar de minimis changes are permitted.'' 49 CFR
107.202(d).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional standards apply to preemption of non-Federal
requirements on highway routes over which hazardous materials may or
may not be transported and fees related to transporting hazardous
material. See 49 U.S.C. 5125(c) and (f). See also 49 CFR 171.1(f)
which explains that a ``facility at which functions regulated under
the HMR are performed may be subject to applicable laws and
regulations of state and local governments and Indian tribes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 amendments and 2005 reenactment of the preemption
provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 reaffirmed Congress's long-standing view
that a single body of uniform Federal regulations promotes safety
(including security) in the transportation of hazardous materials. More
than thirty years ago, when it was considering the HMTA, the Senate
Commerce Committee ``endorse[d] the principle of preemption in order to
preclude a multiplicity of State and local regulations and the
potential for varying as well as conflicting regulations in the area of
hazardous materials transportation.'' S. Rep. No. 1102, 93rd Cong. 2nd
Sess. 37 (1974). When Congress expanded the preemption provisions in
1990, it specifically found that many States and localities have
enacted laws and regulations which vary from Federal laws and
regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials,
thereby creating the potential for unreasonable hazards in other
jurisdictions and confounding shippers and carriers which attempt to
comply with multiple and conflicting registration, permitting, routing,
notification, and other regulatory requirements. And because of the
potential risks to life, property, and the environment posed by
unintentional releases of hazardous materials, consistency in laws and
regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials is
necessary and desirable. Therefore, in order to achieve greater
uniformity and to promote the public health, welfare, and safety at all
levels, Federal standards for regulating the transportation of
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce are
necessary and desirable.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Public Law 101-615 Sec.  2, 104 Stat. 3244. (In 1994,
Congress revised, codified and enacted the HMTA ``without
substantive change,'' at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51. Public Law 103-272,
108 Stat. 745 (July 5, 1994).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A United States Court of Appeals has found uniformity was the
``linchpin'' in the design of the Federal laws governing the
transportation of hazardous materials. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n v.
Harmon, 951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir. 1991).

III. Preemption Determinations

    Under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1), any person (including a State,
political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe) directly affected by
a requirement of a State, political subdivision or tribe may apply to
the Secretary of Transportation for a determination whether the
requirement is preempted. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated
authority to PHMSA to make determinations of preemption, except for
those concerning highway routing (which have been delegated to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). 49 CFR 1.97(b).
    Section 5125(d)(1) requires notice of an application for a
preemption determination to be published in the Federal Register.
Following the receipt and consideration of written comments, PHMSA
publishes its determination in the Federal Register. See 49 CFR
107.209(c). A short period of time is allowed for filing of petitions
for reconsideration. 49 CFR 107.211. A petition for judicial review of
a final preemption determination must be filed

in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or
in the Court of Appeals for the United States for the circuit in which
the petitioner resides or has its principal place of business, within
60 days after the determination becomes final. 49 U.S.C. 5127(a).
    Preemption determinations do not address issues of preemption
arising under the Commerce Clause, the Fifth Amendment or other
provisions of the Constitution, or statutes other than the Federal
hazardous material transportation law unless it is necessary to do so
in order to determine whether a requirement is authorized by another
Federal law, or whether a fee is ``fair'' within the meaning of 49
U.S.C. 5125(f)(1). A State, local or Indian tribe requirement is not
authorized by another Federal law merely because it is not preempted by
another Federal statute. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Harmon, above,
951 F.2d at 1581 n.10.
    In making preemption determinations under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), PHMSA
is guided by the principles and policies set forth in Executive Order
No. 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), and
the President's May 20, 2009 memorandum on ``Preemption'' (74 FR 24693
(May 22, 2009)). Section 4(a) of that Executive Order authorizes
preemption of State laws only when a statute contains an express
preemption provision, there is other clear evidence Congress intended
to preempt State law, or the exercise of State authority directly
conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority. The President's May
20, 2009 memorandum sets forth the policy ``that preemption of State
law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only
with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States
and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.'' Section 5125
contains express preemption provisions, which PHMSA has implemented
through its regulations.

IV. Public Comments

    All comments should be directed to whether 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts
the State of Washington's rules relating to the volatility of crude oil
received in the state. Comments should specifically address the
preemption criteria discussed in Part II above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 18, 2019.
Paul J. Roberti,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-15675 Filed 7-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31315-31317]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14021]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0238; FRL-9995-40]

Draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Risk Evaluations and
TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) Meetings; Cyclic
Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) and 1,4-Dioxane; Notice of
Availability and Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA announces the availability of documents and dates for the
peer review of the draft risk evaluations for Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide
Cluster (HBCD) and 1,4-Dioxane, and associated documents. The purpose
of the risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment under the conditions of use,
including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation. EPA is also submitting these same documents
to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer
review and is announcing that there will be a 5-day in-person meeting
of the TSCA SACC to consider and review these draft risk evaluations.
Preceding the in-person meeting, there will be a 3-hour preparatory
virtual meeting for the panel to consider the scope and clarity of the
draft charge questions for the peer reviews.

DATES:
    Meetings: The preparatory virtual meeting will be held on July 10,
2019, from 1 p.m. to approximately 4 p.m. (EDT). The 5-day in-person
meeting will be held on July 29, 2019 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EDT)
and July 30, 2019 to August 2, 2019 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately
5:30 p.m. (EDT).
    Comments: Comments on the draft risk evaluations must be received
on or before August 30, 2019. Written comments for and requests to make
oral comments during the TSCA SACC meeting must be submitted on or
before July 19, 2019 for consideration by the TSCA SACC. For additional
instructions, see Unit II.A. and Unit II.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES:
    Webcast: The preparatory virtual meeting will be conducted via
webcast and telephone. Registration is required to participate during
the preparatory virtual meeting. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review website for additional information including how to
register. The 5-day in-person meeting may also be webcast. Please refer
to the TSCA SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review for
information on how to access the webcast. Please note that for the in-
person meeting, the webcast is a supplementary public process provided
only for convenience. If difficulties arise resulting in webcasting
outages, the in-person meeting will continue as planned.
    In-Person Meeting: The 5-day in-person meeting will be held at the
Holiday Inn Rosslyn at Key Bridge, Rosslyn Ballroom, 1900 North Fort
Myer Drive, Arlington, VA 22209.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by the respective docket
identification (ID) numbers for each chemical (i.e., Cyclic Aliphatic
Bromide Cluster (HBCD) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237) and 1,4-Dioxane (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0238)), 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: OPPT 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.
    Requests to present oral comments and requests for special
accommodations. Submit requests for special accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments (in-person or over the telephone) to the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    TSCA SACC meetings: Dr. Todd Peterson, DFO, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-6428; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Risk Evaluations: Dr. Stan Barone, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (7403M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Special accommodations for the SACC meeting: For information on
access or services for individuals with disabilities, and to request
accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to
give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing
and risk evaluations of chemical substances under the TSCA, 15 U.S.C.
2601 et seq. Since other entities may also be interested in these risk
evaluations, the EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What action is the EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on
the draft Risk Evaluations for Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD)
and 1,4-Dioxane, and associated documents. EPA is seeking public
comment on all aspects of these draft risk evaluations, including any
conclusions, findings, determinations, and the submission of any
additional information that might be relevant to the science underlying
the risk evaluations and the outcome of the systematic review
associated with HBCD and 1,4-Dioxane. This 60-day comment period on the
draft risk evaluations satisfies TSCA section 6(b)(4)(H), which
requires EPA to ``provide no less than 30 days public notice and an
opportunity for comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing
a final risk evaluation'' and 40 CFR 702.49(a), which states that ``EPA
will publish a draft risk evaluation in the Federal Register, open a
docket to facilitate receipt of public comment, and provide no less
than a 60-day comment period, during which time the public may submit
comment on EPA's draft risk evaluation.'' In addition to any new
comments on the draft risk evaluations, the public should resubmit or
clearly identify any previously filed comments, modified as
appropriate, that are relevant to these risk evaluations and that the
submitter feels have not been addressed. EPA does not intend to

respond to comments submitted prior to the release of these draft risk
evaluations.
    EPA is also submitting these same documents to the TSCA SACC for
peer review and announcing the meetings for the peer review panel. All
comments submitted to the dockets for consideration by the TSCA SACC by
the deadline identified in DATES will be provided to the TSCA SACC peer
review panel, which will have the opportunity to consider the comments
during its discussions.

C. What is the EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to ``determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator,
under the conditions of use.'' 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections
6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements
applicable to this process, including provisions that direct which
chemical substances must undergo evaluation, the development of
criteria for manufacturer-requested evaluations, the minimum components
of an EPA risk evaluation, and the timelines for public comment and
completion of the risk evaluation. The law also requires that EPA
operate in a manner that is consistent with the best available science
and make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence. 15
U.S.C. 2625(h) and (i).
    The statute identifies the minimum components EPA must include in
all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA
must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation
to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of
use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposure for the conditions of use
of the chemical substance, including information on specific risks of
injury to health or the environment and information on relevant
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether
aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that
consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely
duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the
conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific
evidence for the identified hazards and exposure. 15 U.S.C.
2605(b)(4)(F)(i)-(ii) and (iv)-(v). The risk evaluation must not
consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    The statute requires that the risk evaluation process last no
longer than three years, with a possible additional six-month
extension. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(G). The statute also requires that the
EPA allow for no less than a 30-day public comment period on the draft
risk evaluation, prior to publishing a final risk evaluation. 15 U.S.C.
2605(b)(4)(H).

II. TSCA SACC Meetings

    The focus of the public meeting is to peer review EPA's draft risk
evaluations of Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) and 1,4-Dioxane.
After the peer review process, EPA will consider reviewer comments and
recommendations and public comments, in finalization of the risk
evaluations. The draft risk evaluations contain: Discussion of
chemistry and physical-chemical properties; characterization of uses/
sources; environmental fate and transport assessment; engineering
release(s) and occupational exposure assessment; general population,
consumer and environmental exposure assessment; human health hazard
assessment; environmental hazard assessment; risk characterization;
risk determination; and a detailed description of the systematic review
process developed by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to
search, screen, and evaluate scientific literature for use in the risk
evaluation process.

A. How may I participate in the in-person meeting?

    You may participate in the 5-day in person meeting by following the
instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is
imperative that you identify the corresponding docket ID numbers for
Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237) and
1,4-Dioxane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0238) in the subject line on the first
page of your request.
    1. Written comments. To provide TSCA SACC the time necessary to
consider and review your comments, written comments must be submitted
by the date outlined in the DATES section and using the instructions in
ADDRESSES and Unit II.C.
    2. Oral comments. In order to be included on the meeting agenda,
submit your request to make brief oral comments to the TSCA SACC during
the in-person meeting to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT on or before the date outlined in the DATES section. The
request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment. Oral comments before
TSCA SACC during the in-person meeting are limited to approximately 5
minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each
speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation
for distribution to TSCA SACC at the meeting by the DFO.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.

B. How may I participate in the preparatory virtual meeting?

    Registration for the July 10, 2019, preparatory virtual meeting is
required. To participate by listening or making a comment during this
meeting, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review website to
register. Registration online will be confirmed by email that will
include the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information.
    1. Written comments. Written comments for consideration during the
preparatory virtual meeting should be submitted, using the instructions
in ADDRESSES and Unit II.C., on or before July 9, 2019.
    2. Oral comments. Requests to make brief oral comments to the TSCA
SACC during the preparatory virtual meeting should be submitted when
registering online or with the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT on or before noon on July 9, 2019. Oral comments before TSCA
SACC during the preparatory webcast are limited to approximately 5
minutes due to the time constraints of this webcast.
    3. Webcast. The preparatory virtual meeting will be webcast only,
and will be open to the public. Please refer to the TSCA SACC website
at http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review for information on how to access
the webcast. Registration is required.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO
listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions
before submitting your comments.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

III. Background

A. What is EPA's risk evaluation process for existing chemicals under
TSCA?

    The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing
chemical process under TSCA, following prioritization and before risk
management. As these two chemicals are part of the first ten chemical
substances undergoing risk evaluation, the chemical substances that are
the subject of this announcement were designated for risk evaluation
and were not required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927,
December 19, 2016) (FRL-9956-47). The purpose of risk evaluation is to
determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to
health or the environment, under the conditions of use, including an
unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both hazard
and exposure, not consider costs or other non-risk factors, use
scientific information and approaches in a manner that is consistent
with the requirements in TSCA for the best available science, and
ensure decisions are based on the weight-of-scientific-evidence.
    The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by
rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702
and summarized on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule on
procedures for risk evaluation (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-
38), the specific regulatory process set out in 40 CFR part 702,
subpart B will be followed for the first ten chemical substances
undergoing risk evaluation to the maximum extent practicable.

B. What is cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD)?

    The hexabromocyclodecanes (HBCD cluster) in the cyclic aliphatic
bromide cluster consists of the following chemicals:
Hexabromocyclododecane; 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane; and
1,2,5,6-Tetrabromocyclooctane. HBCD is a flame retardant and is
primarily used in construction materials, which may include structural
insulated panels (SIPS). The building and construction industry uses
expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) for
thermal insulation boards and laminates for sheathing products. HBCD is
also used in replacement parts for vehicles and in solder paste. Data
reported for the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting period for HBCD indicate
that between 1 and 10 million lb of each chemical component were
manufactured in or imported into the U.S. in 2015; however, domestic
manufacture of HBCD has since ceased.
    Information about the problem formulation and scope phases of the
risk evaluation for this chemical is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-cyclic-aliphatic-bromide-cluster-hbcd.

C. What is 1,4-dioxane?

    1,4-Dioxane is used primarily as a solvent in industrial and
commercial processes, such as in the manufacture of other chemicals, as
a processing aid, a laboratory chemical reagent, and in adhesives and
sealants. Historically, 90% of 1,4-dioxane production was used as a
stabilizer in chlorinated solvents such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA).
The 2016 Chemical Data Reporting data shows that there were two
manufacturers producing or importing over 1 million pounds in the U.S.
in 2015.
    Information about the problem formulation and scope phases of the
risk evaluation for this chemical is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-14-dioxane.

D. What is the purpose of the TSCA SACC?

    The TSCA SACC was established by EPA in 2016 and operates in
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C
Appendix 2 et seq. The SACC supports activities under TSCA, the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other
applicable statutes. The TSCA SACC provides expert independent
scientific advice and recommendations to the EPA on the scientific and
technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution
prevention measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA.
    The TSCA SACC is comprised of experts in: Toxicology; human health
and environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related
sciences (e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, PBPK modeling,
computational toxicology, epidemiology, environmental fate, and
environmental engineering and sustainability). The TSCA SACC currently
consists of 24 members. When needed, the committee will be assisted in
their reviews by ad hoc participants with specific expertise in the
topics under consideration.

E. TSCA SACC Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, and draft
charge/questions to TSCA SACC are available on the TSCA SACC website
and in the dockets for Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0237) and 1,4 Dioxane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0238). In addition,
the EPA will provide additional background documents (e.g., TSCA SACC
members participating in this meeting and the meeting agenda) as the
materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these
documents, and certain other related documents that might be available,
at http://www.regulations.gov and the TSCA SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.
    TSCA SACC will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the EPA. The meeting minutes will be posted on the
TSCA SACC website and in the relevant dockets.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2625 et. seq.; 5
U.S.C Appendix 2 et. seq.

    Dated: June 25, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-14021 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 2124]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00435]

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

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: ER20-420-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2020-01-08_SA 3375 Entergy Arkansas-
Searcy Solar Substitute GIA (J893) to be effective 11/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-558-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEC-NCEMC Amendment to NITSA
Amendment (SA No. 210) to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-573-001.
    Applicants: GridLiance Heartland LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended GLH Certificate of
Concurrence Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-752-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Interconnection Agreement
Houlton Water Company to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-753-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Third Amendment
Interconnection Agreement Wintec V WDT1014 SA No. 525 to be effective
1/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-754-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PSC-Nereo-NonConf-LGIA-555-
0.0.0 to be effective 1/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-755-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-01-08_SA 3397 ITC-MEC
FSA (J475) to be effective 3/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-756-000.
    Applicants: North Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Upstream Change in Control and Request for Waiver to be effective 3/9/
2020.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-757-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Silicon Valley
Power Agreement (RS 248) to be effective 3/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

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

    Dated: January 8, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00435 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24930-24932]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding bird strike
protection rulemaking, policy, and guidance for normal category
rotorcraft and to provide recommendations to enhance the existing bird
strike protection standards for transport category rotorcraft. The FAA
amended its regulations to incorporate bird strike protection rules for
transport category rotorcraft in 1996. Data shows an increase in the
bird population and weight has resulted in an increase in bird strikes
with both normal category rotorcraft and transport category rotorcraft.
The increase in bird strikes has led to more frequent bird penetration
into the cockpit and cabin areas, elevating the risk of potential
serious injuries or fatalities to occupants. Direct bird impact to the
pilot has led to partial or complete pilot incapacitation in numerous
cases, increasing the risk of fatalities.
    This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and
solicits membership for the Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary B. Roach, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number 817-
222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    As a result of the March 23, 2016, ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned
and ARAC accepted this task establishing the Rotorcraft Bird Strike
Working Group. The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group will serve as
staff to the ARAC and provide advice and recommendations on the
assigned task. The ARAC will review and accept the recommendation
report and will submit it to the FAA.

Background

    The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation-related

issues that could result in rulemaking, to the FAA Administrator,
through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety.
    In 1996, a bird strike protection rule (14 CFR 29.631) was adopted
requiring that transport category rotorcraft be designed to ensure
continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for
Category B) following an impact with a 2.2-pound bird. At that time,
bird strike protection was not adopted for normal category rotorcraft.
As of 2015, normal category rotorcraft comprise over 90% of rotorcraft
operating in the U.S. The data from the FAA's Wildlife Strike Database
indicates about 75% of reported bird strikes from 1990-2013 were with
normal category rotorcraft. These percentages suggest that the absence
of bird strike protective requirements for normal category rotorcraft
results in increased risk for the majority of U.S. rotorcraft.
    Further analysis of rotorcraft data from the FAA's Wildlife Strike
Database indicates a 68% increase in bird strikes since 2009 and more
than a 700% increase since the early 2000s. In raw numbers, the
percentages translate from around 25 reports of rotorcraft bird strikes
per year in the early 2000s, to 121 strikes in 2009, to 204 strikes in
2013. Using rotorcraft flight hours to perform a rate-based analysis,
reported bird strikes increased 49% in the five year period from 2010
to 2014 (3.99 per 100,000 flight hours to 5.95 per 100,000 flight
hours). Better event reporting accounts for some of this increase, but
the rapid escalation goes beyond reporting improvements alone. One
conjecture is the increase may be caused by the growing population of
birds in general, a growing population of larger birds, quieter
aircraft, and an increase in the number of rotorcraft operations.
    In addition to the increased frequency of bird strikes, the FAA has
observed increased strikes to the rotorcraft windscreen area with a
force of impact that has directly endangered occupants and elevated the
risk to safe rotorcraft operations. Bird penetration into the cockpit
and cabin areas has become increasingly common, elevating the
probability of potential serious injuries or fatalities to occupants.
Moreover, direct bird impact to the pilot has led to partial or
complete pilot incapacitation in numerous cases, often causing an
increased risk for loss of control of the rotorcraft and fatalities.
The typical scenario is that the bird strikes and shatters a portion of
the front windscreen. The bird's remains, as well as damaged portions
of the rotorcraft (such as the windscreen), either hit the pilot in the
head, neck, or upper torso, or proceed through the cockpit to strike
the passengers or crew.
    These recent observations reinforce previous findings from the
study, Bird Strikes to Civil Helicopters in the United States, 1990-
2005 (2006), by Cleary, Dolbeer, and Wright, based on 15 years of data
from the FAA's National Wildlife Database. The study concluded that:
(1) Helicopters were significantly more likely to be damaged by bird
strikes than airplanes, (2) windshields on helicopters were more
frequently struck and damaged than windshields on airplanes, and (3)
helicopter bird strikes were more likely to lead to injuries to crew or
passengers than airplane bird strikes. The NTSB referenced these same
findings in its accident report of a 2009 fatal rotorcraft accident in
Morgan City, LA, where a bird strike was determined to be the probable
cause of the accident (NTSB Aircraft Accident Report No. CEN09MA117).
    Some bird strike events where the bird penetrates the cockpit and
cabin have received less attention either because the damage was
limited to the windscreen or because the injury to the crew and
passengers was minor. However, a superficial examination of the
rotorcraft damage and occupant injury levels is misleading. The FAA has
found that most of these cases had less to do with the sufficiency of
aircraft design and equipage, and more to do with the crew's personal
protective gear--such as helmets--that mitigated the potential event
severity. Other cases of low severity are the result of fortuitous
circumstance. One specific example occurred during a March 2015 police
operation in Dallas, Texas, where a bird penetrated the cockpit and
struck the pilot, who was not wearing a helmet. The pilot was
incapacitated by the impact and--under ordinary circumstances--the
event would likely have led to a fatal outcome from loss of rotorcraft
control. However, the left seat occupant happened to be a rated
helicopter pilot, something that was not typical for the police
operation being conducted. The left seat occupant then assumed control
of the rotorcraft and landed without incident. The result was an event
with a low-severity outcome, but the underlying lesson from the
relatively benign consequence cannot be dismissed.
    While the absence of any bird strike requirements for normal
category rotorcraft must be addressed, data shows that bird strikes
with transport category rotorcraft are a growing concern, especially
encounters with larger birds. Transport category rotorcraft are more
likely to spend extended time in the en route phase of flight and fly
at higher altitudes. While the higher altitude would appear to reduce
the probability of encountering bird strike, data shows an increased
altitude does not mitigate the severity of damage when a bird strike
occurs. A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study found
that, of the 32 damaging strikes that occurred to U.S. rotorcraft in
2014, 72% of those occurred more than 500 feet above ground level. The
study opined that the more severe damage was likely attributable to the
higher speed of the rotorcraft during the en route phase of flight. The
increased exposure of transport category rotorcraft in this environment
suggests the existing 2.2-pound bird strike requirement may not be
adequate.
    Whether normal category or transport category, the unique operating
profile of a helicopter leads to a different exposure to bird strike
risk than does fixed-wing aircraft. The study, Wildlife strikes to
civil helicopters in the U.S., 1990-2011 (2013) by Washburn, Cisar, and
Default, discusses some of the differences. It concluded that, unlike
with fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter bird strikes occur with greatest
frequency during the en route phase of flight and in the off-airfield
environment. It credits bird strikes that occur in the off-airfield
environment as accounting for the majority of bird strike-related human
injuries and fatalities for helicopters. Since helicopters operate at
much lower altitudes than fixed-wing aircraft, the exposure to the risk
of a bird strike is not limited to the departure and arrival phases of
flight, but instead remains for the duration of the flight profile.

The Task

    The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group will provide advice and
recommendations to the ARAC on bird strike protection rulemaking,
policy, and guidance for parts 27 and 29. The Rotorcraft Bird Strike
Working Group is tasked to:
    1. For normal category rotorcraft, specifically advise and make
written recommendations on how to incorporate bird strike protection
requirements into the part 27 airworthiness standards for newly type
certificated rotorcraft.
    2. For normal category rotorcraft, specifically advise and make
written recommendations on how the bird strike protection requirements
in Task 1 should be made effective via Sec.  27.2 for newly
manufactured rotorcraft.
    3. For transport category rotorcraft, specifically advise and make
written recommendations on how to enhance

the Sec.  29.631 bird strike protection airworthiness standard in light
of increases in bird weight and increased exposure to bird strikes for
newly type certificated rotorcraft.
    4. For transport category rotorcraft, specifically advise and make
written recommendations on how the bird strike protection requirements
in Task 3 should be made effective via Sec.  29.2 for newly
manufactured rotorcraft.
    5. For normal and transport category rotorcraft, specifically
advise and make written recommendations on incorporating rotorcraft
bird strike protection improvements and standards into the existing
rotorcraft fleet.
    6. For Tasks 1 through 5, consider existing non-traditional bird
strike protection technology, including the use of aircraft flight
manual limitations (such as requiring airspeed limitations at lower
altitudes), when making the recommendations. These considerations must
include: An evaluation of the effectiveness of such technology,
assumptions used as part of that evaluation, validation of those
assumptions, and any procedures to be used for operation with the
technology or with the aircraft limitations.
    7. Based on the recommendations in Tasks 1 through 6, specifically
advise and make written recommendations for the associated policy and
guidance.
    8. Based on the Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group
recommendations, perform the following:
    a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a
result of the proposed recommendation and how much it would cost.
    b. Estimate the safety improvements of future bird encounters from
the proposed recommendations.
    c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., reduced administrative
burden) or costs that would result from implementation of the
recommendations.
    9. Develop a report containing recommendations on the findings and
results of the tasks explained above. The report should document:
    a. Both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the
rationale for each position.
    b. Any disagreements, including the rationale for each position and
the reasons for the disagreement.
    10. The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC in
responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation
report has been submitted.

Schedule

    The recommendation report should be submitted to the FAA for review
and acceptance no later than 18 months after publication of this notice
in the Federal Register.

Working Group Activity

    The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group must comply with the
procedures adopted by the ARAC as follows:
    1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any
other related materials or documents.
    2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task,
including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by
the ARAC.
    3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
    4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on review and
analysis of the assigned tasks.
    5. Present the recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.

Participation in the Working Group

    The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group will be comprised of
technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working
group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA
would like a wide range of members (normal category rotorcraft
manufacturers, transport category rotorcraft manufacturers, and
rotorcraft operators from various segments of the industry such as oil
and gas exploration, emergency medical services, and air tour
operators) to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in
development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13,
2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, ``Revised Guidance on
Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and
Commissions'' (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists
participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in
their ``individual capacity.'' The revised guidance now allows
registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in
a ``representative capacity'' for the ``express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable
group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector,
labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local
government.'' (For further information, see Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
    If you wish to become a member of the Rotorcraft Bird Strike
Working Group, write the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire. Describe your interest in
the task and state the expertise you would bring to the working group.
The FAA must receive all requests by May 27, 2016. The ARAC and the FAA
will review the requests and advise you whether or not your request is
approved.
    If you are chosen for membership in the working group, you must
actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and
provide written comments when requested. You must devote the resources
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned
deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent
advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the
proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those
you represent. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members
will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC
Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the
Working Group Chair.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of
the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
    The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the
Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group are not open to the public, except
to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are selected
to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working
group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 19, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2016-09781 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 217 (Thursday, November 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66978-66979]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27320]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9750-5]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree
to resolve a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Integrity Project,
Sierra Club, and Texas Campaign for the Environment (collectively,
``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al., v. Jackson, No.
1:12-cv-00867-RMC (D. D.C.). Plaintiffs filed a deadline suit to compel
the Administrator to respond to an administrative petition seeking
EPA's objection to a CAA Title V operating permit issued by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality to the Luminant Generation Company
to operate the Sandow 5 Generating Plant, a power plant located in
Milam County, Texas. Under the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree
to respond to the petition by January 15, 2013.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by December 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2012-0847 online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Coursen, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit alleging that
the Administrator failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or
deny, within 60 days of submission, an administrative petition to
object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality to the Luminant Generation Company to operate the
Sandow 5 Generating Plant, a power plant located in Milam County,
Texas. Under the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to respond to
the petition by January 15, 2013. In addition, the proposed consent
decree further states that following signature, EPA shall expeditiously
deliver notice of such action to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication and, if EPA's response includes the granting of any portion
of the petition in whole or in part, EPA shall promptly transmit the
response to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Plaintiffs
and EPA agree that this Consent Decree shall constitute a complete and
final settlement of all claims that Plaintiffs have asserted against
the United States, including EPA, under any provision of law in
connection with Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. Jackson,
Case No. 12-cv-00867 (D.D.C.), except as provided in Paragraph 4 of the
proposed Consent Decree, addressing any claim for costs of litigation.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0847) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-27320 Filed 11-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68438]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-16-000]

Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on November 6, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2014), Southern California Edison
Company (SCE) filed a petition for declaratory order seeking
affirmation that the limitation on damages contained in Article 18.2 of
the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) prohibits an
interconnection customer from recovering, from its transmission
provider, lost profits on power sales. In addition, SCE states that a
Commission order affirming the meaning and purpose of Article 18.2
would serve to protect ratepayers, ensure that FERC policy and intent
reflected in the LGIA is implemented, provide transmission providers
across the country with equal treatment and consistent interpretation
of the LGIA, and enhance the construction of facilities needed to
interconnect renewable power, as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    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 5 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 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 8, 2014.

    Dated: November 7, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27093 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12343-12345]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05242]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0444; FRL 9924-16-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a portion of the July 20, 2012, State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality
(NCDAQ) for inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. This final action
pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. With the exception of
provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting and state board requirements, EPA is taking final action to
approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA
on July 20, 2012, because it addresses the required infrastructure
elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0444. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory
Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly
the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Farngalo can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the
CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet
applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three
years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly
referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIP submissions. Section 110(a)
imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such
infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what
provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of
the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions
in connection with previous lead NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a
newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The applicable infrastructure
SIP requirements that are the subject of this rulemaking are listed
below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to other provisions of the CAA
for submission of SIP revisions specifically applicable for
attainment planning purposes. These requirements are: (1)
Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that
subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I
of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I)
which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address
infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport
provisions.
 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority.
 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public
notification, and PSD and visibility protection.
 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

    On November 20, 2014, EPA proposed to approve North Carolina's July
20, 2012, 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the
exception of preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the
state board requirements of 110(E)(ii), which EPA will address in a
separate action. See 79 FR 69082.

II. Today's Action

    In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve North
Carolina's July 20, 2012, infrastructure submission as demonstrating
that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, with the exception of
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J); and the state board
requirements of 110(E)(ii). EPA will act on these portions of North
Carolina's July 20, 2012, submission in a separate action.

III. Final Action

    With the exception of provisions pertaining to preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
prong 3 of D(i), and (J); and the state board requirements of
110(E)(ii), EPA is approving North Carolina's July 20, 2012,
infrastructure submission because it addresses the required
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This submission
addresses infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS for the
North Carolina SIP. With the exceptions noted above, NC DENR has
addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements to
ensure that the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and
maintained in North Carolina.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide 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 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 May 8, 2015. 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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 20, 2015.
 Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(e), the table is amended by adding an entry
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        State       EPA  approval    Federal Register
            Provision              effective date       date             citation              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        6/15/2012        3/9/2015  [Insert Federal      With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2008 Lead                                     Register citation].  PSD permitting
 National Ambient Air Quality                                                            requirements for major
 Standards.                                                                              sources of sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C), prong 3
                                                                                of D(i), and (J) and
                                                                                the state board
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                110(E)(ii).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-05242 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39680-39681]
[DOCID:fr13jy06-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12058-002]

Baker County; Notice of Intent to File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of Licensing
Proceeding, Scoping Meetings, Solicitation of Comments on the Pad and
Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study
Requests

June 27, 2006.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
an original License and Pre-Application Document.
    b. Project No.: 12058-002.
    c. Dated Filed: April 27, 2006.
    d. Submitted By: Baker County.
    e. Name of Project: Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
located on the Powder River in Baker County, Oregon. The proposed
project would likely occupy lands of the United States within the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Fred Warner Jr., County Commission
Chair, 1995 3rd Street, Baker City, OR, 97814,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. We are asking Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental
issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental
document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should
follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph n
below.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations there under at 50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. Baker County filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD); including a
proposed process plan and schedule with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. Copies of the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1) are available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site (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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph n.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified

via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and SD1
as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study
requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In
addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for
cooperating agency status, and all communications to Commission staff
related to the merits of the potential application (original and eight
copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the
Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Mason Dam
Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-12058-002), and bear the heading
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by August 25, 2006.
    Comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for
cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of
communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-

filing'' link.
    o. At this time, Commission staff intends to prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the project, in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. However, there is the possibility
that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required.
Nevertheless, the scoping meetings will satisfy the NEPA scoping
requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the
Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    We will hold a daytime and night time scoping meeting at the times
and places noted below. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The time and location of these meetings are as follows:

    Date and Time: Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 1 p.m. (PDT).
    Location: Baker County's Extension Building, 2610 Grove Street,
Baker City, Oregon.
    Date and Time: Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 7 p.m. (PDT).
    Location: Baker County's Extension Building, 2610 Grove Street,
Baker City, Oregon.
    For Directions: Please call Robin Nudd, of Baker County Board of
Commissioners at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, has been mailed to the
individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of
SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the
Web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the

directions for accessing information in paragraph p. Depending on the
extent of comments received, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may or may not
be issued.

Site Visit

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct a site
visit of the proposed project on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, starting at 1
p.m. All participants should meet at the Baker County Courthouse,
located at 1995 3rd Street, Baker City, Oregon, 97184. All participants
are responsible for their own transportation. Anyone with questions
about the site visit should contact Ms. Robin Nudd of Baker County
Board of Commissioners at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or before July 4, 2006.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meeting, staff will: (1) Present the proposed list
of issues to be addressed in the EA; (2) review and discuss existing
conditions and resource

agency management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing
information and identify preliminary information and potential study
needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-
filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part
5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible,
maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and
certification processes; and (5) discuss requests by any federal or
state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for
development of an environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the Pre-Application Document in
preparation for the scoping meeting. Directions on how to obtain a copy
of the PAD and SD1 are included in item m of this document.

Scoping Meeting Procedures

    The scoping meeting will be recorded by a stenographer and will
become part of the formal Commission record on the project.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10988 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67729-67730]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG21-10-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG of American Electric Power
Service Corporation, on behalf of Flat Ridge 3.
    Filed Date: 10/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201016-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2009-002.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--Part 1 to be
effective 2/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2009-003.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--Part 2 to be
effective 2/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2787-001.
    Applicants: Greenleaf Energy Unit 2 LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency filing to be effective
10/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201016-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2787-002.
    Applicants: Greenleaf Energy Unit 2 LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendement to 5 to be effective 10/
30/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-3027-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to DEF-Seminole Amended
and Restated NITSA to be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201016-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-130-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of exigent circumstances
filing to be effective 10/21/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-136-000.
    Applicants: Flat Ridge 3 Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff Filing to be
effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201016-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-137-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits ECSA, SA No.
5710 to be effective 12/16/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201016-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-138-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits ECSA, SA No.
5711 to be effective 12/16/2020..
    Filed Date: 10/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20201016-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-139-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company, Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-10-19_SA 3028 Ameren
IL-Prairie Power Project #29 Arcola to be effective 12/19/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-140-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 5797; Queue No. AC1-034 to be effective 9/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-141-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Origianl ISA No. 5800; Queue
No. AC1-143 to be effective 9/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-142-000.
    Applicants: System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SERI UPSA Protocols to be
effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-143-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended and Restated
Transmission Services Agreement to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-144-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Terminiation--DEF-DEF-
RS-296 to be effective 12/19/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20201019-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF21-47-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal Cleveland LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of ArcelorMittal Cleveland LLC [Cleveland].
    Filed Date: 10/15/20.
    Accession Number: 20201015-5222.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF21-48-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal Cleveland LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of ArcelorMittal Cleveland LLC [Warren].
    Filed Date: 10/15/20.
    Accession Number: 20201015-5224.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF21-49-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal USA LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of ArcelorMittal USA LLC [Indiana Harbor East
No. 16].
    Filed Date: 10/15/20.
    Accession Number: 20201015-5226.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF21-50-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal USA LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of ArcelorMittal USA LLC [Indiana Harbor
West].
    Filed Date: 10/15/20.
    Accession Number: 20201015-5228.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: October 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23638 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P