[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57802-57803]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24370]

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

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: EC15-98-000.
    Applicants: Union Power Partners, L.P., Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to March 17, 2015 Joint Application for
Section 203 Authorization of Union Power Partners, L.P., Entergy
Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., and Entergy New
Orleans, Inc.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3117-004; ER10-3115-003; ER13-445-006; ER14-
2823-004; ER11-4060-006; ER11-4061-006; ER15-1170-002; ER15-1171-002;
ER15-1172-002; ER15-1173-002.
    Applicants: Lea Power Partners, LLC, Waterside Power, LLC, Badger
Creek Limited, Double C Generation Limited Partnership, High Sierra
Limited, Kern Front Limited, Bear Mountain Limited, Chalk Cliff
Limited, Live Oak Limited, McKittrick Limited.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status Lea Power Partners, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 9/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150921-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3417-010; ER10-2895-014; ER14-1964-005; ER13-
2143-007; ER10-3167-006; ER13-203-006; ER11-2292-014; ER11-3942-013;
ER11-2293-014; ER10-2917-014; ER11-2294-013; ER12-2447-012; ER13-1613-
007; ER10-2918-015; ER10-2920-014; ER11-3941-012; ER10-2921-014; ER10-
2922-014; ER13-1346-006; ER10-2966-014; ER11-2383-009; ER10-3178-007.
    Applicants: Alta Wind VIII, LLC, Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, BIF
II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC, Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC,
Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, Black Bear SO, LLC, Brookfield Energy
Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy
Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield
Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower
LLC, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, Carr Street Generating Station,
L.P., Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., Granite Reliable Power, LLC,
Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest Hydro LLC, Mesa Wind Power
Corporation, Rumford Falls Hydro LLC, Safe Harbor Water Power
Corporation, Windstar Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Brookfield
Companies.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1406-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: 2015-09-21_SA 2766 Refund Report of
ATC-City of Elkhorn CFA to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150921-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2541-000.
    Applicants: Burgess Capital LLC.
    Description: Amendment to August 27, 2015 Burgess Capital LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 9/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150917-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2650-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Monthly Qualified Capacity
Changes to be effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150914-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2675-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised Construction
Service Agreement No. 3477, Queue No. R11/Z2-109 to be effective 8/19/
2015.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2676-000.
    Applicants: Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 11/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2677-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to PWRPA's
Customer Service Charge to be effective 9/21/2015.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES15-71-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-72-000.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
of Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Filed Date: 9/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150918-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/15.

    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: September 21, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24370 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79637-79639]
[DOCID:fr30de08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0697]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Intracoastal Waterway (ICW),
Barnegat Bay, Seaside Heights, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation
regulations of the S37 Bridge, at ICW mile 14.1, across Barnegat Bay at
Seaside Heights, NJ. The final rule will allow the drawbridge to
operate on an advance notice basis during specific times of the year.
This change will result in more efficient use of the bridge during
months of infrequent transit.

DATES: This rule is effective January 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0697 and are available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for
inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management 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 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and
the Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st
Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Terrance Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 22, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Intracoastal
Waterway (ICW), Barnegat Bay, Seaside Heights, NJ'' in the Federal
Register (73 FR 49622). We received no comments on the published NPRM.
No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) is responsible
for the operation of the S37 Bridge, at ICW mile 14.1, across Barnegat
Bay at Seaside Heights, NJ. NJDOT requested advance notification for
vessel openings from December 1 to March 31 from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. for
the drawbridge due to the infrequency of requests.
    In the closed-to-navigation position, the S37 Bridge, at ICW mile
14.1, across Barnegat Bay at Seaside Heights, NJ, has a vertical
clearance of 30 feet, above mean high water. The existing operating
regulations for the drawbridge is set out in 33 CFR Sec.  117.733(c),
which require the bridge to open on signal except from December 1
through March 31 from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw need not be opened;
from April 1 through November 30, from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. the draw shall
open if at least four hours notice is given; and from Memorial Day
through Labor Day from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., the draw need only open on the
hour and half hour.
    A review of the bridge logs for 2005 to 2007 supplied by NJDOT
revealed from December 1 through March 31 between 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
the drawbridge opened for vessels a total of 5, 9, and 35 times per
year, respectively. The year 2007 was an anomaly, based on unseasonably
warm weather for the winter months.
    Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings during the
winter months, NJDOT requested to change the current operating
regulations from December 1 through March 31 from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. of
every year by requiring the draw span to open on signal if at least
four hours notice is given at all times from December 1 through March
31.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments to the NPRM. Based on the
information provided, we will implement a final rule with no changes to
the NPRM.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. We reached this conclusion based on the
fact that mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the
scheduled bridge openings, to minimize delays and vessels that can pass
under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1 and,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.733(c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.733  New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) From December 1 through March 31, the draw need only open if at
least four hours notice is given.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 9, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
 [FR Doc. E8-31016 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Responses to Comments Not Addressed in the Preamble to the Final Rule:

Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments

February 5, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540

Comment:

One commenter was concerned that the grace period for newly designated
areas would not leave sufficient time for their agency to complete and
adopt a TIP based on the agency’s schedule.  The commenter wrote that
if the designations were made in “October 2009,” and the one-year
grace period expires in “December 2009,” there would be insufficient
time to demonstrate conformity and adopt the 2010 TIPs.

Response:

The preamble to the final rule clarifies the applicable dates.  The
commenter’s assertion that the grace period expires in December of
2009 is incorrect.  EPA’s final rule designating areas nonattainment
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS was published in the Federal Register on
November 13, 2009, and effective December 14, 2009.  The one-year
conformity grace period for newly designated areas begins on December
14, 2009, and ends on December 14, 2010.

Comment:

	The commenter notes that serious health impacts are associated with
exposure to fine PM.  More than enough research has been done that shows
that some types of transportation projects can emit enough PM2.5 to
cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS.  Given the compelling
evidence that diesel exhaust may be the most hazardous of all PM
components, it is imperative that EPA fulfill its responsibility to
control PM2.5 emissions from transportation projects.

Response:

	EPA has fulfilled its responsibility regarding PM2.5 emissions from
transportation projects by implementing the Clean Air Act conformity
requirements for PM2.5.

Comment:

	One commenter thought that EPA’s proposed option to define the
baseline year related to the SIP or AERR process would not reduce
EPA’s need to issue guidance in the future.

Response:

	EPA intends to issue guidance to clarify the baseline year for any
future new or revised PM2.5 NAAQS.  Such guidance will be needed to
explain how the regulation finalized today (which defines the baseline
year with respect to the AERR) should be implemented for a specific new
or revised PM2.5 NAAQS.  However, today’s regulation removes the need
for EPA to revise its baseline year regulation for any future new or
revised PM2.5 NAAQS.

Comment:

	A commenter suggested that if EPA finalizes the proposed option 2 for
the baseline year, EPA should align the baseline year for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS with the baseline year for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Response:

	EPA did not propose to revise the baseline year for any future new or
revised ozone NAAQS, and therefore this comment is outside the scope of
today’s action.

Comment:

	A commenter that supported the option finalized in today’s rule noted
that EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has not
recommended a single SIP modeling base year as a reason for their
support of this option.

Response:

	EPA notes that there is no requirement that the baseline year for the
conformity baseline year test and the base year used for SIP modeling be
the same year.  The baseline year for the baseline year test for the
2006 PM2.5 areas is 2008, as described in the preamble of today’s
rule.

Comment:

	One commenter noted that either interim emissions test is adequate as
long as the same emissions model and assumptions are used for the build
scenario and the comparison scenario, i.e., either the no-build scenario
or the baseline year.

Response:

	EPA agrees that the same model has to be used for both the build case
and the comparison case, given differences in model results between
MOBILE6.2 and MOVES using the same or similar inputs.  EPA believes it
is unlikely that any area would want to use different models for the
build and comparison cases in a single regional emissions analysis given
the additional time involved.  In any case, models for conformity
analyses must be decided through the interagency consultation process,
of which EPA is a member, and that consultation process will help ensure
that consistent models and assumptions are used.

Comment:

	The commenter noted that areas are likely to need to use interim tests
in upcoming years because most areas do not have adequate or approved
budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  In addition, this commenter noted
that the court’s remand of the CAIR program still needs to be
addressed.  This commenter also noted that the introduction of MOVES
will require rerunning some inventories for consistency purposes.

Response:

	EPA agrees that many areas will need to use one of the interim
emissions tests because adequate or approved budgets are not yet
available for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA’s response to the CAIR remand
is outside the scope of today’s rulemaking.

	In areas that have adequate or approved budgets for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, SIPs may need to be updated using MOVES.  EPA believes that the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas must use MOVES in developing SIPs
for this NAAQS, therefore such inventories will not need to be redone
when MOVES is required for transportation conformity (i.e., at the end
of the two-year MOVES grace period).

Comment:

One commenter was concerned that there is no SIP strategy designed to
reduce emissions near roadways to the levels needed to attain the NAAQS,
and EPA’s proposed interpretation of CAA 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) fails to
require the highway project to reduce emissions in the area affected by
the project.  The commenter suggested that if EPA were to modify its SIP
guidance to require states to model the incremental impact of highway
emissions near highways, and develop a control strategy designed to
remedy these violations, then EPA’s interpretation of CAA
176(c)(1)(B)(iii), to require an air quality assessment focused on
whether emissions from the proposed project would cause or contribute to
new violations or worsen existing violations, would be reasonable.
However, the commenter believes that EPA has created a set of SIP
policies that allows states to ignore elevated levels of PM2.5 and
resulting NAAQS violations near highways.  And, as long as these
policies remain in effect, the commenter believes that there is no basis
for interpreting (B)(iii) as allowing projects to proceed if emissions
from those project continue to cause or contribute to future NAAQS
violations.

Response:

	For the reasons described in the preamble to today’s action, EPA
disagrees that its regulations fail to satisfy CAA section
176(c)(1)(B)(iii).  Further, the commenter’s assertions regarding the
alleged shortcomings of the SIP process are outside the scope of
today’s rulemaking.

Comment:

One commenter was concerned that introduction of MOVES would result in
an inability to pass conformity.  This commenter states that the area
experienced three non-conformity determinations from 1996-2003, because
SIP budgets were initially calculated using MOBILE4 but subsequent EPA
models effectively doubled calculated emissions, resulting in
“technical” mismatch with budgets.  This commenter stated that they
are not yet able to assess their potential situation because MOVES is
not yet available.

Response:

	Because a new emissions model can produce different emissions results,
the conformity rule includes a provision for a grace period before the
new model must be used for conformity determinations.  This grace period
can be from three months to two years, depending on the degree of change
between the existing model and the new model.  In the case of MOVES, EPA
intends to provide the maximum length grace period of two years.

	EPA released MOVES2010 in December 2009, and will be establishing a
two-year grace period, which should give areas sufficient time to
address issues.  Furthermore, EPA believes SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
must be developed using MOVES.  EPA is providing SIP and conformity
guidance for the transition to the MOVES model, as well as other
information and training regarding the use of MOVES. See EPA’s
website:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/trainingsessions.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/trainingsessions.htm  for
information about upcoming training sessions.  Also note that other
MOVES related guidance, including user guides and other technical
information is available on EPA’s website at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm , and   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm .

Comment:

One commenter suggested that air quality modeling process used in
transportation conformity should be reformed to use the most recent air
quality data available, rather than prediction-based models.

This commenter also suggested that emissions budgets have a built-in
level of flexibility, such as a 10 to 15 percent cushion, to allow for
increases in emissions.

Third, this commenter suggested that hot-spot analysis should be removed
from the regulations.

Response:

	EPA did not in this rulemaking propose any regulatory revisions
addressing air quality modeling, and therefore the first comment is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.  However, EPA believes that the
current requirements to model future transportation activity and
resulting emissions is required by the Clean Air Act.  Section
176(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that “emissions expected from
implementation of such plans and programs are consistent with estimates
of emissions from motor vehicles and necessary emissions reductions
contained in the applicable air quality implementation plan...”  In
other words, conformity is to examine future transportation sector
emissions, rather than an area’s overall air quality, which is
affected by not just the transportation sector but other sources of
emissions as well as topographical and meterological factors.

Furthermore, EPA does not believe that it is possible to use an area’s
current air quality data to estimate emissions as distant as 20 years in
the future.  As described above, an area’s current air quality data
results from all sources of emissions.  While the transportation
sector’s emissions are included, they result from current levels of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the emissions characteristics of the
vehicle fleet on the road today.  Neither VMT nor vehicle emissions will
be the same in the future as they are today.  The conformity rule’s
requirements for preparing a regional emissions analysis result in a
reasonable estimate of future emissions that result from planned
transportation.

EPA’s new emissions model, MOVES, does include the most recent data
about vehicle emissions under different conditions.  EPA believes that
this model improves the accuracy of predicted emissions.

	Further, EPA did not propose in this rulemaking any revisions to the
conformity budget test regulations and did not propose substantive
changes to the hot-spot requirements.  Therefore, the comments on those
issues are outside the scope of today’s action.

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540

  PAGE  2


[Federal Register: September 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 45881-45883]
[DOCID:fr04se09-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0029]

OSHA Data Initiative; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements for
OSHA's Data Initiative program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0029,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.

Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2009-
0029). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Rex Tingle at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rex Tingle at Office of Statistical
Analysis, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N3507, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    To meet many of OSHA's program needs, OSHA is proposing to continue
its collection of occupational injury and illness data and information
on the number of workers employed and the number of hours worked from
establishments in portions of the private sector and from some state
and local government agencies. OSHA will collect the data on an annual
basis from up to 100,000 employers already required to create and
maintain records pursuant to 29 CFR Part 1904. These data will allow
OSHA to calculate occupational injury and illness rates and to focus
its efforts on individual workplaces with ongoing serious safety and
health problems. Successful implementation of this data collection is
critical to OSHA's outreach and enforcement efforts and the data
requirements tied to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    This notice requests public comments on an extension of the current
OMB approval of the paperwork requirements for the OSHA Data Initiative
program.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
    Title: OSHA Data Initiative.
    OMB Number: 1218-0209.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits, Farms, and State,
Local and Tribal Government.
    Cite/Reference/Form/etc.: OSHA Form 196A and OSHA Form 196B.
    Number of Respondents: 100,000.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Average Time Per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 16,667 hours.
    Total Estimated Cost: $399,008.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0029). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g. copyrighted material)
is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov web-site to submit

comments and access the docket is available through the Web site's
``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information
about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance
in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 28th, 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-21330 Filed 9-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11321-11322]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2111]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before May 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload/ and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2111, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload/ and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Community                 Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Charlevoix County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
          Project: 13-05-4241S Preliminary Date: June 30, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Charlevoix...................  City Hall, 210 State Street,
                                        Charlevoix, MI 49720.
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa     Little Traverse Bay Bands of
 Indians.                               Odawa Indians Government Center,
                                        7500 Odawa Circle, Harbor
                                        Springs, MI 49740.
Township of Charlevoix...............  Charlevoix Township Hall, 12491
                                        Waller Road, Charlevoix, MI
                                        49720.
Township of Hayes....................  Hayes Township Hall, 9195 Old
                                        U.S. 31 Highway North,
                                        Charlevoix, MI 49720.
Township of Norwood..................  Charlevoix County Building, 301
                                        State Street, Charlevoix, MI
                                        49720.

Township of Peaine...................  Peaine Township Hall, 36825 Kings
                                        Highway, Beaver Island, MI
                                        49782.
Township of St. James................  St. James Township Government
                                        Center, 37830 Kings Highway,
                                        Beaver Island, MI 49782.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-03767 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P