[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 9501]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2881-037; ER10-2882-038; ER10-2883-036; ER10-
2884-036; ER16-2509-007; ER17-2400-008; ER17-2401-008; ER17-2403-008;
ER17-2404-008.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company, Southern Power Company, Rutherford Farm,
LLC, SP Butler Solar, LLC, SP Decatur Parkway Solar, LLC, SP Pawpaw
Solar, LLC, SP Sandhills Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Alabama
Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210208-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1683-004.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing of Amended
Distributed Generation Policy D-11 to be effective 9/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-653-000; ER21-654-000.
    Applicants: Centerfield Cooper Solar, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to December 15, 2020 Centerfield
Cooper Solar, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/5/21.
    Accession Number: 20210205-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1023-000.
    Applicants: Thunderhead Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Request for Prospective Tariff Waiver of Thunderhead
Wind Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210202-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1070-000.
    Applicants: Upper Missouri G. & T. Electric Cooperation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Rate Schedules FERC
to be effective 2/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210208-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1071-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wholesale Contract Revisions
to Rate Schedule Nos. 330, 337, and 338 to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210208-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1072-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 5100; Queue No. AC1-212 to be effective 2/14/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1073-000.
    Applicants: DATC SLTP, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation to be effective 3/
11/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1074-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205: enhancements to
economic planning process to be effective 4/11/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1075-000.
    Applicants: DATC Midwest Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation to be effective 3/
11/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210209-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/21.

    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: February 9, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03039 Filed 2-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49526-49528]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16601]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2022-0112; FRL-9734-02-R1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Rules for Particulate Emissions
From Open Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions of New Hampshire Code of
Administrative Rules Chapter Env-A 1000 submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on January 8, 2020. Env-A 1000 establishes requirements for
open burning, fugitive dust, and firefighter instruction and training
activities. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2022-0112. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) 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 at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation
Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that, if at all possible, you contact the contact 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 legal holidays and facility closures
due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pujarini Maiti, Air Quality Planning
Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 18, 2022 (87 FR 22821), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire proposing to approve
two SIP revisions submitted by the State. Information about the
proposed SIP revisions are as follows.
    On January 8, 2020, NH DES submitted revisions of New Hampshire
Code of Administrative Rules Chapter Env-A 1000 (Prevention, Abatement,
and Control of Open Source Air Pollution) and Env-A 2800 (Sand and
Gravel Sources; Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and
Concrete Sources) to EPA for approval into the New Hampshire SIP. NH
DES withdrew the January 2020 submission of Env-A 1000 to the SIP on
July 19, 2021. On August 19, 2021, NH DES submitted another revision of
Env-A 1000 to EPA for approval into the New Hampshire SIP. This
regulation establishes requirements for open burning, fugitive dust,
and firefighter instruction and training activities. NH DES submitted
this revision to replace the current SIP-approved Env-A 1000 (83 FR
6972; February 16, 2018), which expired at the state level on May 1,
2019. The submittal also includes Appendices A and B, which provide
references and definitions that are included in Env-A 1000. EPA has
determined that the new version of Env-A 1000 is no less stringent than
existing Env-A 1000 in the New Hampshire SIP and, therefore, meets
requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
    Herein, we are approving Env-A 1000. The rationale for this action
is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. There were no
public comments received on the NPRM.
    At this time, we are not taking final action on Chapter Env-A 2800,
which establishes requirements for particulate matter, visible
emissions, and fugitive dust standards for sand and gravel sources,
non-metallic mineral processing plants, and cement and concrete
sources.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving and incorporating Env-A 1000 into the New
Hampshire SIP, which was submitted by the State of New Hampshire on
August 19, 2021. However, we are not finalizing our proposal to approve
Env-A 2800 at this time, which was submitted on January 8, 2020. EPA
will take action on Env-A 2800 at a later time.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of New Hampshire
regulation Env-A 1000, effective August 1, 2019, as described in
section I. of this preamble and set forth below in the amendments to 40
CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 11, 2022. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 28, 2022.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
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 EE--New Hampshire

0
2. In Sec.  52.1520, amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the
entry ``Env-A 1000'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                     EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              State       EPA approval
        State citation               Title/subject       effective date     date \1\           Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Env-A 1000...................  Control of Open Burning.        8/1/2019       8/11/2022  Approve the amended
                                                                                Part Env-A 1000
                                                                                ``Prevention,
                                                                                Abatement and Control
                                                                                of Open Source Air
                                                                                Pollution'' to
                                                                                supersede the
                                                                                previously SIP-
                                                                                approved version.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2022-16601 Filed 8-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


             TSD on Mercury Emissions from State Rules and Voluntary ACI
      For purposes of the necessary finding, EPA does not include mercury reductions attributable to state mercury-specific regulations that result in the construction or operation of Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) mercury controls or voluntary mercury reduction programs, because such rules and programs are not required pursuant to the CAA.   EPA does include mercury reductions from ACI at units that commenced operation after 2007, because states are required under section 112(g) to require HAP limitations (including Hg) for new units.  While EPA has not verified that those units installed ACI pursuant to section 112(g) limitations, we determined it was likely the controls were required pursuant to the CAA so we included them in our emissions estimates.
      Calculation of the mercury emission reductions excluded from the necessary finding required identification of the affected ACI controls and estimation of the incremental mercury removal in the base case modeling due to the operation of that ACI.  This adjustment required calculation of revised mercury emissions based on each affected model plant's technological configuration once the ACI was removed.   Projected fuel use was assumed to remain unchanged.  These adjustments are summarized at the state level in Table 1.
 Table 1.  Mercury Reductions Attributable to Mercury-Specific State Rules and Voluntary Mercury Controls in 2015 Base Case Projections (tons)
                                     State
                                  State Rule
                                 Voluntary ACI
                                      AZ
                                     0.058

                                      CO
                                     0.175

                                      CT
                                     0.003

                                      DE
                                     0.029

                                      GA
                                       0

                                      IA
                                     0.113

                                      IL
                                     1.628

                                      IN

                                     0.123
                                      MA
                                     0.083

                                      MD
                                     0.074

                                      ME
                                     0.01

                                      MI
                                     0.002

                                      MN
                                     0.39

                                      MO

                                     0.027
                                      MT
                                     0.244

                                      NH
                                     0.005

                                      NM
                                     0.027

                                      NY
                                     0.061

                                      OR
                                     0.064

                                      TX

                                     1.443
                                      WI
                                     0.143

                                     Total
                                     3.109
                                     1.593


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 26291]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10997]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-SFUND-2011-0339 FRL-9302-2]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative ``Cost Recovery'' Settlement; the
Doe Run Resources Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs
concerning the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, St. Francois
Mining Area, St. Francois County, Missouri with the following settling
party: The Doe Run Resources Corporation. The settlement requires the
settling party to pay $208,990, to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party
pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty
(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency
will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency
will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its
consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate,
improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received
will be available for public inspection at: Desloge Public Library, 209
North Desloge Drive, Desloge, Missouri 63601; and St. Francois County
Health Department, 1025 West Main, Park Hills, Missouri 63601; and
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII Docket Room, 901 North
Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII Docket Room, 901
North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. A copy of the proposed
settlement may be obtained from Kathy Robinson, Regional Hearing Clerk,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, 901 North Fifth Street,
Kansas City, KS 66101,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments should reference the Big
River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, St. Francois County, Missouri, and
EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2011-0003, and should be addressed to Kathy
Robinson, Regional Hearing Clerk, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII, 901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Gunter, Remedial Project
Manager, Superfund Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VII, 901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 21, 2011.
Cecilia Tapia,
Director, Superfund Division, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-10997 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 United States Environmental Protection Agency

                             Region IX Air Division

                          Technical Support Document
                                      for
                     EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
                                    for the
                     California State Implementation Plan
              as submitted by the California Air Resources Board

                              EPA's Analysis of
             San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's
                       Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators

                                 October 2010

                           Prepared by Joanne Wells

                          Approved by Andrew Steckel

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Submitted Rule
   * Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators was originally adopted on April 11, 1991 as Rule 463.4, amended on December 17, 1992, and submitted on August 24, 2007. The submittal was determined complete on September 17, 2007.  There are no other submittals of this rule on which EPA has not acted.

Applicable SIP Rules
   * The SIP version of this rule is SJVUAPCD Rule 463.4, Wastewater Separators, adopted on April 11, 1991, approved on May 13, 1993 (58 FR 28354).

Background
On January 2, 2008 (73 FR 48), EPA published a direct final approval of revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).  These revisions concerned SJVUAPCD  rules that address reduction of animal matter, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from crude oil operations and petroleum refinery equipment, asphalt paving and maintenance, and petroleum solvent dry cleaning.  The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comment.  The direct final rule stated that if adverse comments were received by February 1, 2008, EPA would publish a timely removal in the Federal Register.  EPA received timely adverse comments.  Consequently, we removed the direct final approval of SJVUAPCD Rules 4104, 4402, 4404, 4453, 4454, 4625, 4641, and 4672 (see 73 FR 13440).

This technical support document (TSD) only addresses SJVUAPCD Rule 4625. We do not intend to take final action based on our January 2008 proposal regarding this rule. As a result, we are not summarizing or replying to comments submitted in response to our January 2008 proposal regarding this rule. No specific comments were received for Rule 4625. However, the general comments received expressed concern regarding whether these rules complied with the requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT) described in CAA Section 182(b)(2) and elsewhere.

Purposes of Rule and Rule Amendments
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOCs, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment.  This rule was developed as part of the local agency's program to control VOC emissions.

The purpose of Rule 4625 is to limit VOC emissions from oil-water wastewater separators by requiring covers and use of vapor loss control devices with a control efficiency of at least 90%. The amendments to approved SIP Rule 463.4 are summarized as follows:

   * The rule is renumbered from 463.4 to 4625.
   * The format is improved, the rule purpose is added, the definition of VOC is deleted.
   * Paragraph 4.3 is added, which allows an exemption from the BACT and offset requirements of Rule 2201 for existing facilities where an incineration device has been added for the sole purpose of complying with the requirements of this rule.

Rule Evaluation
EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 4625.

   1. Enforceability  -  CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable.

   2. Anti-Backsliding - CAA §110(l) restricts certain SIP revisions that would relax existing SIP-approved requirements.

   3. Rule Stringency  -  CAA §172(b) and 182(a)(2)(A) require ozone nonattainment areas to implement RACT for ozone precursors. The SJVUAPCD regulates an extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hr ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81) and must fulfill the requirements of RACT.

On April 16, 2009, SJVUAPCD adopted its "RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP," which provides the District's demonstration that RACT is implemented for all appropriate rules. This includes several pages discussing Rule 4625.  (See Cover and applicable pages attached.)  In summary, SJVUAPCD states that:

      * Rule 4625 VOC control requirements are basically the same as contained in EPA's relevant control technique guidelines (CTG).  The applicable CTG for these sources is "Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators and Process Units", EPA-450/2-77-025, October 1977.
      * Overall, Rule 4625 is as stringent as the federal New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems, 40 CFR 60 Subpart QQQ,  November 23, 1988 (53 FR 47623).
      * The District believes that Rule 4625 is as stringent as the NESHAP/MACT standard, National Emission Standards for Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators, 40 CFR 63 Subpart VV, July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34195).
      * Rule 4625 imposes very similar requirements to those in other large California nonattainment areas, such as South Coast (SCAQMD) and Bay Area (BAAQMD).

In general, we concur with the District's analysis that this rule imposes requirements that are similar to the requirements in the 1977 CTG. However, Rule 4625 includes an exemption (4.2) for Air Flotation Units which is not found in the CTG or in other California districts' rules.

Rule 4625 has requirements for controlling VOCs that are similar to the basic requirements stated in the NSPS and the NESHAP/MACT. However, these regulations have requirements for stricter VOC controls (95%) and additional design requirements for controlling fugitive emissions or breathing losses, and additional requirements for inspections and maintenance. These stricter requirements minimize fugitive emissions and vapor losses from properly designed and well maintained oil-water separators and their associated slop or skimmed oil storage tanks.

Rule 4625 general requirements are similar to the requirements found in other large California nonattaiment areas such as Ventura, South Coast and Bay Area.  However, both SCAQMD Rule 1176 (1996) and BAAQMD Reg. 8, Rule 8 (1993) require vapor control devices with 95% efficiency whereas Rule 4625 only requires 90% efficiency. The SCAQMD and BAAQMD rules also include more specific design, operation, inspection and maintenance requirements that are similar to the requirements found in the NSPS (Subpart QQQ) and NESHAP (Subpart VV).  SJVUAPCD Rule 4625 requirements are the original Rule 463.4 requirements, adopted in 1991.This rule has not been updated to include more current requirements for design, maintenance, inspections and operation as specified in the NSPS and NESHAP/MACT or to replace outdated test methods.

In summary, the changes to Rule 4625 are mostly administrative and do not change or relax the requirements of this rule. The rule is generally enforceable, but needs to be revised to replace outdated and inappropriate test methods.  In addition, the new exemption (4.3) is not appropriate and SJVAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that this rule satisfies current RACT.  These deficiencies are discussed in more detail in the Rule Deficiencies section below.

Rule Deficiencies
The following deficiencies preclude full approval of Rule 4625 into the SIP:

1. The December 1992 amendment added exemption 4.3, which reads "For existing facilities, if an incineration device is added or modified for the sole purpose of complying with the requirements of this rule, such a device shall be exempt from the Best Available Control Technology and the Offset requirements of Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule)".  This exemption should be removed from Rule 4625. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD's NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and incorporated within the NSR program only if appropriate.  Such exemptions should not be in source-specific prohibitory rules like Rule 4625.

2. Although Rule 4625 includes similar requirements to the 1977 CTG, SJVUAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4625 currently implements RACT because RACT can change over time as control technology improves and/or becomes more available. More stringent requirements exist in the NSPS (1988), NESHAP (1995), BAAQMD Rule 8-8 (1993) and SCAQMD 1176 (1996). These regulations have requirements for stricter VOC controls (see, e.g., 95% requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1176, section (e)(2)(A)(ii) and (e)(6)),  additional design requirements for controlling fugitive emissions or breathing losses (see, e.g., BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule  8, section 302.4), and additional requirements for inspections and maintenance (see, e.g., BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4 and 302.6).

3. The exemption for air flotation units precludes regulation of potentially significant VOC sources (section 4.2).  Even though these sources are currently regulated via District permit conditions, SJVUAPCD should subject them to SIP requirements as part of Rule 4625 or demonstrate why that is not necessary. There is no specific allowance in the CTG or other guidance documents for exempting air flotation units from regulation and no other California air district rules include such an exemption under their similar rules.

4. To improve enforceability, SJVUAPCD should revise section 6.0 Test Methods to remove inappropriate or outdated test methods such as 6.1.2 ARB Method 432 for paints and coatings, and 6.1.3 which refers to an obsolete document superseded by EPA Method 204 for determining capture efficiency (40 CFR 51). We recommend including EPA Test Method 21 (measurements of leaks) as referenced in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, Section 6.4 Test Methods, or SCAQMD Rule 1176, Section (h).

5. The RACT Demonstration mentions that the requirements in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, "Components at Petroleum Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and Chemical Plants"  apply to oil-water separators.  SJVUAPCD should include those requirements directly in Rule 4625 or by reference to improve enforceability, or demonstrate that this is not appropriate.

6. To ensure ongoing compliance and strengthen enforceability, SJVUACPD should add to the rule requirements for inspections of covers, access hatches and other openings and emissions control equipment, along with recordkeeping requirements for inspections and testing or demonstrate that this is not appropriate. For example, please see SCAQMD Rule 1176, section (f) and (g).

7. SJVUAPCD should delete or justify exemption 4.1 for wastewater separators exceeding a set value for a sump surface area to the rate of oil vapor loss ratio.  The only other rule where we found such exemption is SCAQMD Rule 464 for Wastewater Separators,  last amended December 7, 1990. This exemption is not found in the newer SCAQMD Rule 1176, "VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems"  amended September 13, 1996, which also addresses wastewater separators and which largely supersedes Rule 464.

EPA Action
The revisions reflected in submitted Rule 4625 are largely administrative changes that do not substantively weaken the SIP, but the deficiencies discussed above preclude full approval. As a result, EPA staff recommends a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of the August 24, 2007 submittal of SJVUAPCD Rule 4625 pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA as amended in 1990. If finalized as proposed, the rule deficiencies identified above would trigger CAA Section 110(m) sanction and Section 110(c) federal implementation plan (FIP) obligations because the San Joaquin Valley is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone required to implement RACT.

EPA Recommendations
The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended as improvements when this rule is amended.
   * We suggest deleting section 7.0 Compliance Schedule since it is no longer applicable.

Guidance and Policy Documents
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

   1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987).
   2. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
   3. Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
   4. "Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations", EPA (May 25, 1988).  [The Bluebook]
   5. "Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies", EPA Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook]
   6. "Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Water Separators and Process Units", EPA-450/2-77-025, October 1977.
   7. "Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems", 40 CFR 60 Subpart QQQ, November 23, 1988 (53 FR 47623).
   8. "National Emission Standards for Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators", 40 CFR 63 Subpart VV, July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34195).

Attachments
   1. SJVUAPCD Rule 4625, "Wastewater Separators" as submitted on August 24, 2007.
   2. SJVUAPCD Rule 463.4, "Wastewater Separators" adopted on April 11, 1991, SIP approved on May 13, 1993.
   3. "2009 RACT SIP", SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009).  [Cover plus sections relevant to SJVUAPCD Rule 4625].


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42052-42054]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-2575; FMCSA-2011-0193; FMCSA-2011-0194; FMCSA-
2013-0183; FMCSA-2013-0186; FMCSA-2013-0188; FMCSA-2013-0189]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce
for 90 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from this rule if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety.
The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will
provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the
level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV
drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may submit comments using the following Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Nos. discussed in this notice using any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these

comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On November 6, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of intent to renew
the exemptions of drivers who have previously held exemptions, and
requested comments from the public (80 FR 68895). The 90 individuals
have held exemptions from the Agency's rule prohibiting persons with
ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate
commerce, for a two-year period if it finds ``such exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The
procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out
in 49 CFR part 381.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver. FMCSA encourages you to participate by
submitting comments and related materials.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    This notice addresses 90 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 90 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of November
and are discussed below.
    As of November 1, 2015 the following 17 individuals have satisfied
conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the rule prohibiting
drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR
50482; 78 FR 65754; 80 FR 68895):

John K. Abels (IL)
Dean A. Bacon (IN)
Philip E. Banks (OH)
Anthony M. Bride (NJ)
Charles E. Dailey (AL)
Kenneth D. Denny (WA)
Adam M. Hogue (MS)
Allen D. LaFave (ND)
Greg P. Mason (NY)
Thomas D. Miller (MT)
Douglas A. Mulligan (KY)
David G. Peters (PA)
Robert J. Rispoli, Jr. (NY)
Mike P. Senn (MN)
Hames H. Suttles (AL)
Gregory F. Wendt (NE)
Michael J. Wickstrom (MI)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0183. Their
exemptions are effective as of November 1, 2015 and will expire on
November 1, 2017.
    As of November 6, 2015, the following individual, George J. Ehnot
(PA), has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption
from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in
interstate commerce (78 FR 56988; 78 FR 67459; 80 FR 68895).

    The driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0186. The
exemption is effective as of November 6, 2015 and will expire on
November 6, 2017.
    As of November 9, 2015, the following 11 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driviing CMVs in interstate
commerce. (78 FR 55460; 78 FR 69795; 80 FR 68895):

Mark A. Blanton (IN)
Howard T. Cash (IL)
Heath J. Chesser (AL)
Kevin F. Connacher (PA)
Darryl A. Daniels (OH)
Carrie L. Frisby (CA)
Dean M. Keeven (MI)
Christopher A. Labudde (IL)
Brian A. Mankowski (IL)
Robert E. Welling (OH)
Keith Weymouth (ME)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0193. Their
exemptions are effective as of November 9, 2015 and will expire on
November 9, 2017. As of November 12, 2015, the following 24 individuals
have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from
the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate
commerce. (78 FR 56988; 78 FR 67459; 80 FR 68895):

Charles E. Andersen (MN)
Philip B. Blythe (IL)
Ryan T. Byndas (AZ)
Winfred G. Clemenson (WA)
Michael C. Crewse (IL)
James D. Crosson, Jr. (MN)
Bruce E. Feltenbarger (MI)
Charles A. Fleming (VA)
Brian W. Hannah (UT)
Michael P. Huck (MI)
Van K. Jarrett (KY)
Keith W. Lewis (MO)
Eugene M. Mikell (NH)
Ronny J. Moreau (NH)
James M. O'Rourke (MA)
Joshua T. Paumer (MT)
Vladimir B. Petkov (MO)
Luther S. Pickell (KS)
Robert J. Pulliam (AZ)
Andrew W. Sprester (ND)
Vincent J. Terrizzi, Sr. (PA)
Daniel C. Theis (FL)
Richard A. White (TN)
Mark A. Winning (IL)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0186. Their
exemptions are effective as of November 12, 2015 and will expire on
November 12, 2017.
    As of November 16, 2015, the following 13 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate
commerce. (76 FR 61140; 76 FR 71111; 80 FR 68895):

Mark D. Andersen (IA)
David A. Basher (MA)
Brian H. Berthiaume (VT)
Eric D. Blocker, Sr. (NC)
Berry W. Campbell (WI)
Raymond A. Jack (WA)
Quency T. Johnson (WI)
Kenny B. Keels, Jr. (SC)
Jason M. Pritchett (MI)
Steven R. Sibert (MN)
Cassie J. Silbernagel (SD)
Lewis B. Taylor (IL)
James A. Terilli (NY)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0194. Their
exemptions are effective as of November 16, 2015 and will expire on
November 16, 2017.
    As of November 19, 2015, the following individual, Marshall H.
Evans (IL), has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs
in interstate commerce (76 FR 63280; 76 FR 76398; 80 FR 68895).
    The driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0188. The
exemption is effective as of November 19, 2015 and will expire on
November 19, 2017.
    As of November 20, 2015, the following 22 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
rule prohibiting

drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (71 FR
58464; 71 FR 67201; 80 FR 68895):

John N. Anderson (MN)
Allan C. Boyum (MN)
Terry L. Brantley (NC)
Steven E. Brechting (MI)
Scott A. Carlson (WI)
Joseph L. Coggins (SC)
Stephanie D. Fry (WY)
Robert W. Gaultney, Jr. (MD)
Paul T. Kubish (WI)
David M. Levy (NY)
Sterling C. Madsen (UT)
David F. Morin (CA)
Jeffrey J. Morinelli (NE)
Ronald D. Murphy (WV)
Charles B. Page (PA)
John A. Remaklus (OH)
Michael D. Schooler (IN)
Arthur L. Stapleton, Jr. (OH)
Carolyn J. Taylor (IN)
Jeffrey M. Thew (WA)
Barney J. Wade (MS)
Dennis D. Wade (IL)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2006-2575. Their
exemptions are effective as of November 20, 2015 and will expire on
November 20, 2017.
    As of November 22, 2015, the following individual, Steven R. Auger
(NH), has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption
from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in
interstate commerce (76 FR 63295; 76 FR 76400; 80 FR 68895).
    The driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0189. The
exemption is effective as of November 22, 2015 and will expire on
November 22, 2017.
    Each of these 90 drivers qualifies for a renewal of the exemption.
They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not
exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to
safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the
90 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit
an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 90 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce
in 49 CFR 391.64(3).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period
and the drivers remain in good standing with the program, have
maintained their required medical monitoring, and have not exhibited
any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely
operate a CMV, they are eligible to receive a renewal from FMCSA under
procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: June 20, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-15222 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66893-66894]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC20-20-000.
    Applicants: Verso Androscoggin LLC, Verso Energy Services LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Verso Androscoggin LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2041-014; ER11-2042-014.
    Applicants: Innovative Energy Systems, LLC, Seneca Energy II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Innovative
Energy Systems, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-194-004.
    Applicants: Hartree Partners, LP.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Hartree
Partners, LP.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-62-000.
    Applicants: OneEnergy Baker Point Solar, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report (ER19-62-) to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-32-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: AEPTX(n)-LCRA TSC Hayter Ranch FDA
Amend Pending to be effective 9/27/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-494-000.
    Applicants: Milligan 3 Wind LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver, et al. of Milligan 3 Wind LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-495-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-02_SA 3380 Entergy
Louisiana-Fresh Air Energy II GIA (J639) to be effective 11/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-497-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 211,
Amendment 20 to be effective 1/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-498-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-02_SA 3382 OTP-NSPM
FSA (J460) Hankinson-Wahpeton to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-499-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., The United Illuminating Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: The United Illuminating
Company; Docket No. ER20-__-000 to be effective 1/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-500-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-02_SA 3383 OTP-
Crowned Ridge Wind II FSA (G736 J442) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-501-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Americus Solar & Battery
Amended and Restated LGIA Filing to be effective 11/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20191202-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/19.

    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: December 2, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26340 Filed 12-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12280-12281]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14188-00o, 14200-000]

 Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXVIII; FFP Project 59, LLC; Notice
Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit Applications

    On February 22, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to

determine priority among competing preliminary permit applications with
identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that
none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to
develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water
resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this
drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order
of priority is as follows:
    1. FFP Project 59, LLC, Project No. 14200-000.
    2. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVIII, Project No. 14188-000.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4802 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"Thompson, John E \(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>12/10/2007 02:31 PM	To
	Christine Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeremy Arling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Finman,
Hodayah H \(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Elisa Rim/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nikhil
Mallampalli/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	bcc

	Subject
	RE: slightly revised iodomethane uptake

	History:
		This message has been replied to.

Christine, appreciate the revised draft based on your additional cross
check.  While it seems to me some overlap remains in applying these
factors, I'm ok with moving forward on this basis, and would suggest we
should choose something in the middle of the range to give us a
reasonably defensible case that we are not being overly optimistic on
MI, but at the same time we are being reasonable in not assuming a
minimum market penetration.

I have added some text to make it clear that this process was done in
relatively short order to account for recent registrations, so it
doesn't serve as a precedent for future analysis that we are tied to as
we collect additional information.  I took a shot at some text, but
given my relative lack of knowledge of preferred language from a
domestic regulatory perspective, I'm very open-minded on how we word
things.  My thanks to you for all your work.

John T.

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:18 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, John E (OES); Finman, Hodayah H (OES);
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: slightly revised iodomethane uptake

after some discussions with DoS I have revised the anticipated uptake
slightly (it seemed a reasonable cross check that the EUP use level fall
within the technical range of the estimate).

I am attaching the revised draft.  Before this draft is included in the
rulemaking docket some boilerplate should be added and the document may
need clarification.

All of the changes/new material are in the last 2 paragraphs.  let me
know what you think.

(See attached file: Uptake of iodomethane--allocation rule revised 7 DEC
2007.doc)

Christine Augustyniak, PhD
Methyl Bromide CUE Technical Team
Office of Pesticide Programs
US Environmental Protection Agency (7503P)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20460-0001

Deliveries:
Potomac Yard One
Room 9782
2777 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA  22205
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703 308 8094