[Federal Register: February 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8932]
[DOCID:fr27fe09-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-688-000]

Florida MSW5 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

February 20, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Florida MSW5 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 12, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4166 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

                           NATIONAL RECYLCING GOALS

Overview
EPA recognizes that collective and collaborative commitments are best achieved when there are common goals. At the 2019 America Recycles Summit, Administrator Wheeler announced that EPA would work to establish national recycling goal(s) in 2020 to inspire action and drive participation, innovation and progress across the entire value chain, including consumers. Since then, EPA has been working with the America Recycles Measurement Workgroup to identify metrics that could quantify the performance of different components of the recycling system. The national goals and associated indicators developed from these metrics will provide the benchmarks needed to evaluate the success of the collective efforts to significantly improve the nation's recycling system.
As a parallel effort, EPA has been developing a draft National Recycling Strategy that identifies objectives and actions needed to create a stronger, more resilient U.S. recycling system. The metrics identified in this document are based on the broad objectives of the draft National Recycling Strategy and are divided into four categories: assessing recycling performance, reducing contamination, increasing processing efficiency and strengthening recycled material markets. The draft national recycling goals aim to create standardized definitions for the recycling industry to keep pace with today's diverse and changing waste system. The draft strategy will identify actions needed to address these challenges that build on the collaborative efforts by stakeholders from across the recycling system that began under the National Framework for Advancing the U.S. Recycling System.
The first category represents the overall objective of strengthening the U.S. recycling system, while the other three categories are key objectives that will help strengthen specific components across the system. The metrics associated with these categories are not listed in any order of preference.
The purpose of this comment period is to identify a key performance metric for each of the four measures. EPA plans to announce the selected metrics as national goals at the America Recycles Summit on November 17, 2020. In 2021, EPA will develop the appropriate methodologies and set numerical targets and baselines for the chosen goals.
Comments
EPA is seeking comments on this list of potential national recycling goals. In reviewing the list of key metrics, questions to consider include:
 Are the names and descriptions of the metrics clear and understandable? If not, please provide recommended edits.
 Are there metrics not included in the list that should be? If so, please provide names and descriptions of additional metrics.
 Which metrics are key to driving innovation in the U.S. recycling system?
 Which metrics are key to stimulating investment in the U.S. recycling system?
 Which metrics are measurable with data that are currently available or may be available in the future?
 Which metric would serve as the best national goal for each of the four objectives?

Please submit the comments to the following docket: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0443 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments will be accepted until 11:59 PM ET on October 2, 2020.
List of Potential Metrics
 System-Wide Recycling Metrics to Assess Recycling Performance
A stronger, more resilient U.S. recycling system is a critical component in reducing the environmental impacts of materials across their lifecycle. Improvement of the U.S. recycling rate, access rate, participation rate, job creation, capture rate and tonnage of recyclables landfilled are needed for a more robust recycling system. Investment and innovation are necessary to strengthen the U.S. recycling system and support industry-wide job creation. Below are metrics that are under consideration to assess the system-wide performance of recycling.
 Recycling Rate: The percentage of the total amount of discarded or used materials generated that are utilized as feedstock for the manufacture of new products.

 Recycling Access Rate: The percentage of households that have access to recycling on par with trash collection services.

 Participation Rate:  The percentage of eligible users regularly using a recycling service.

 Recycling Jobs: The number of jobs supported directly and indirectly by the recycling industry, including upstream supply chain economic activities.

 Capture Rate: The percentage of recyclable material generated that are recycled.

 Recyclables Landfilled: The tonnage of recyclable materials landfilled

 Reducing Contamination in the Recycling Stream
Contamination negatively affects the ability of a material recovery facility (MRF) or secondary processing facility to produce high-quality, clean recycled materials that can serve as feedstock for new materials and products. Contamination occurs at multiple points including curbside, in-bound and out-bound and in residuals. Below are metrics expressed as a percentage that could be used to assess contamination.
 Curbside Contamination:  The percentage of materials that residents place in their recycling collection that are not accepted in their curbside program or acceptable materials that have high amounts of residue.

 MRF In-Bound Contamination:  The percentage of materials arriving at the MRF that are not accepted by the facility or acceptable materials that have high amounts of residue

 Recycled Commodity Contamination: The percentage of contaminants in out-bound recycled commodity materials such as paper, plastic, glass and metals.

 Residual Rate: The percentage of materials coming out of the MRF that are sent to combustion facilities or landfills.

 Increasing Materials Processing Efficiency
Recycling infrastructure in the U.S. has not kept pace with the evolving recyclables stream. Investment and innovation are needed to increase the efficiency of materials processing infrastructure and create a more resilient recycling system. Examples of efficiencies that can be attained through additional investment include improving the capacity utilization rate, decreasing the cost of sorting recyclable materials and increasing the percentage of recyclable materials post-sort compared to the amount of recyclables entering the MRF. Below are metrics that could be used to assess materials process efficiency.
 Capacity Utilization Rate: The total tonnage of materials processed by MRFs as compared to the total tonnage of materials that MRFs are capable of processing.

 Processing Cost: The per-ton operating and capital costs for MRFs to receive, separate and prepare recyclable materials for end-user markets.

 Processing Yield: The percentage of materials recovered by a MRF or secondary processing facility compared to the incoming materials.

 Strengthening Markets for Recycled Materials
There is a need to improve domestic markets for recyclable materials and recyclable products, as well as to better integrate recycled materials into products and packaging designs. Policies, programs, initiatives and incentives should focus on recycled content and materials with less mature markets. Strengthening markets for recycled materials will provide local jobs, add resiliency to market disruptions and create cost savings for local municipalities. Below are metrics that could be used to assess markets for recycled materials.
 Recycled Commodity Quality: The quality of post-processed recycled materials marketed for manufacture based on standard industry specifications.

 Domestic Utilization: The percentage of recycled materials used domestically as compared to the amount exported.

 Recycled Content: The percentage of recycled content within manufactured goods.

 Commodity Value: The average per-ton value of post-processed recycled materials.


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17900]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1073; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-28]

Amendment to Class E Airspace; Summersville, WV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, technical
amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a final rule
published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2008, amending Class
E airspace at Summersville, WV (73 FR 75938). This action also corrects
the misspelling of the airport name and town from Summerville to
Summersville.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 20, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on December 15 (73 FR 75938) amending
Class E airspace to provide adequate controlled Class E airspace for
aircraft executing Instrument Flight Rule operations at Summersville,
WV. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse
public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would
become effective on March 12, 2009. No adverse comments were received,
and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

Technical Amendment

    After publication, it was observed that the airport name and town
were misspelled. Therefore, in the Federal Register Docket No. FAA-
2008-1073; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-28, published on December 15,
2008 (73 FR 75938), change the following: on page 75938, columns 1 and
2, and page 75939, columns 1 and 2, change referenced spelling from
Summerville Airport and Summerville, WV, to ``Summersville Airport and
Summersville, WV.''
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 1, 2009.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-8834 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31137-31138]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-12-000]

Commission Information Collection Activity (FERC-566); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-566 (Annual Report
of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers)] to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the
FERC-566 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due August 2,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0114, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC18-12-000 by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this

docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket
may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest
Purchasers).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0114.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-566 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), mandates federal
oversight and approval of certain electric corporate activities to
ensure that neither public nor private interests are adversely
affected. Accordingly, the FPA proscribes related information filing
requirements to achieve this goal. Such filing requirements are found
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically in 18 CFR
Section 131.31, and serve as the basis for the FERC-566.
    FERC-566 implements FPA requirements that each public utility
annually publish a list of the 20 purchasers which purchased the
largest annual amounts of electric energy sold by such public utility
during any of the three previous calendar years. The public disclosure
of this information provides the information necessary to determine
whether an interlocked position is with any of the 20 largest
purchasers of electric energy. Similar to the Form 561,\1\ the FPA
identifies who must file the FERC-566 report and sets the filing
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FERC Form No. 561 (Annual Report of Interlocking
Directorates), OMB Control No. 1902-0099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                                              FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Annual number
          Number of respondents              of responses   Total number of   Average burden and cost per    Total annual burden hours       Cost per
                                            per respondent     responses             response \3\              and total annual cost      respondent ($)
(1)                                                   (2)   (1) * (2) = (3)  (4).........................  (3) * (4) = (5).............       (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300......................................               1              300   4 hrs.; $306................  1,200 hrs.; $91,800.........            $306
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $76.50 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The figure comes from the 2017
FERC average hourly cost (for wages and benefits) of $76.50 (and an
average annual salary of $158,754). Commission staff is using the
FERC average hourly cost because we consider any reporting completed
in response to the FERC-566 to be compensated at rates similar to
the work of FERC employees.

    Dated: June 26, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14226 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P