[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 176-179]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28221]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82403; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-807]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To Increase the
Authorized Amount Under the Prefunded Liquidity Program

December 26, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 12, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the advance notice SR-NSCC-2017-807 (``Advance
Notice'') as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the Advance Notice from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    The advance notice of NSCC proposes to increase the aggregate
amount of short-term promissory notes (``Commercial Paper'') and
extendible-term promissory notes (``Extendible Notes'' and, together
with the Commercial Paper, ``Notes'') that NSCC is authorized to issue
and sell, as further described below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules and
Procedures of NSCC (``Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/
media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice
and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text
of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to
this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

(B) Advance Notice Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act

Description of the Proposal
    NSCC maintains a program to issue and sell the Notes (``Prefunded
Liquidity Program'' or the ``Program''), and is currently authorized to
issue and sell the Notes in an aggregate amount up to $5 billion.\4\
NSCC is proposing to increase the aggregate amount of Notes it would be
authorized to issue and sell under the Program to $10 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The principal terms of the Prefunded Liquidity Program are
described in an advance notice (SR-NSCC-2015-802) (``2015 Advance
Notice'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of
the Clearing Supervision Act and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Act.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75730 (August 19, 2015), 80
FR 51638 (August 25, 2015) (SR-NSCC-2015-802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Management of the Prefunded Liquidity Program. Pursuant to the
terms and conditions described in the 2015 Advance Notice, NSCC issues
Notes to institutional investors, and invests the proceeds in
accordance with the Clearing Agency Investment Policy.\5\ The Program
is managed and monitored daily by the Treasury group (``Treasury'').\6\
NSCC has structured the Prefunded Liquidity Program such that the
maturities of the issued Notes are staggered to avoid concentrations of
maturing liabilities. The majority of the Notes issued and sold under
the Program to date have been Commercial Paper, however, NSCC maintains
the flexibility to issue and sell any combination of Commercial Paper
and Extendible Notes up to the authorized amount in order to allow it
to adjust to the market for each of these types of Notes and to stagger
the maturities of the outstanding Notes. Treasury also maintains and
adheres to internal guidelines that limit the amount of Notes that can
mature within any one-week period. The weighted average maturity of the
aggregate Notes outstanding issued under the Prefunded Liquidity
Program have generally ranged between one and two months, and, in order
to maintain the staggered maturity structure, the weighted average
maturity of the Notes would be expected

to increase under the proposal to approximately three to six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79528 (December 12,
2016), 81 FR 91232, (December 16, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-007; SR-FICC-
2016-005; SR-NSCC-2016-003). The 2015 Advance Notice stated that the
proceeds from the issuance of the Notes would be held in a cash
deposit account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (``FRBNY'').
NSCC subsequently adopted the Clearing Agency Investment Policy,
which permits NSCC to invest such proceeds in bank deposits either
at the FRBNY or at an approved bank counterparty.
    \6\ Treasury is a part of the Chief Finance Office Organization
of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''), NSCC's
parent company. DTCC operates on a shared services model with
respect to the NSCC and its affiliates. Most corporate functions are
established and managed on an enterprise-wide basis pursuant to
intercompany agreements under which it is generally DTCC that
provides a relevant service to NSCC and its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the cash proceeds from the Prefunded Liquidity Program are
one of NSCC's existing default liquidity resources, as described below,
Treasury, in consultation with the Liquidity Product Risk Unit,\7\
makes decisions regarding the aggregate amount of Notes to be issued
based on NSCC's projected liquidity needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Liquidity Product Risk Unit is a part of the Group Chief
Risk Office of the DTCC and is responsible for NSCC's liquidity risk
management program. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC Liquidity Risk Management. NSCC measures and manages its
liquidity risks and needs on a daily basis. In compliance with its
regulatory requirements, NSCC seeks to maintain liquid resources in a
sufficient amount to meet its settlement obligations under a wide range
of foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to,
the default of the affiliated family of Members that would generate the
largest aggregate payment obligation for NSCC in extreme but plausible
market conditions.\8\ NSCC developed the Prefunded Liquidity Program in
order to strengthen its liquidity risk management by supplementing its
other liquid resources with additional, prefunded, readily available
liquid resources. NSCC's other liquid resources include (1) the cash in
its Clearing Fund; \9\ (2) the cash that would be obtained by drawing
on NSCC's committed 364-day credit facility with a consortium of banks
(``Credit Facility''); \10\ and (3) additional cash deposits, known as
``Supplemental Liquidity Deposits.'' \11\ By maintaining multiple
sources for liquidity, NSCC does not have to rely on any one source to
meet its liquidity needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
    \9\ Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund
Formula and Other Matters), supra note 3.
    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80605 (May 5, 2017), 82
FR 21850 (May 10, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-802, SR-NSCC-2017-802).
    \11\ Rule 4(A) (Supplemental Liquidity Deposits), supra note 3.
The Supplemental Liquidity Deposits are designed to cover the
heightened liquidity exposure arising around monthly option expiry
periods and are required from those Members whose activity would
pose the largest liquidity exposure to NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Increase to the Program. NSCC is proposing to increase the
aggregate amount of Notes it would be authorized to issue and sell
under the Prefunded Liquidity Program to $10 billion dollars. The
proposal would enable NSCC to continue to maintain a sufficient amount
of liquid resources in compliance with its regulatory requirements
through the issuance of additional Notes in the event its liquidity
needs increase. The proposal also would enable NSCC to meet its
regulatory requirements with additional, prefunded, readily available
liquid resources, which are available for NSCC to draw as needed to
complete end-of-day settlement in the event of a Member default.
    Likewise, the proposal would provide NSCC with the flexibility to
reduce its reliance on the Credit Facility as necessary. NSCC has
observed varying levels of interest by the credit markets in recent
years and cannot be certain that it will be able to continue to renew
the Credit Facility at levels that would meet its projected liquidity
needs in future years. Alternatively, the growth of the Prefunded
Liquidity Program since its inception has been supported by a high, and
growing, investor interest in high-rated Commercial Paper.\12\ Further,
while the Credit Facility continues to be an important liquidity
resource, it does not provide NSCC with prefunded, readily available
liquidity, and incurs a greater cost to maintain than the Prefunded
Liquidity Program. The Program would still be a more cost-effective
liquidity resources, as compared to the Credit Facility, after the
proposed increase. Therefore, the proposal would give NSCC the
flexibility to better diversify its reliance on the various liquidity
resources, including the Prefunded Liquidity Program, as it deems
necessary to continue to meet its liquidity needs and in order to
manage the associated costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In March 31, 2016, NSCC had issued approximately $1.4
billion in Commercial Paper to 81 investors and, as of July 31,
2017, this increased to approximately $3 billion in Commercial Paper
outstanding to 177 investors. Further, as NSCC's investor base has
grown, it has also diversified to include corporations, asset
managers, governments, and financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes the proposal to add $5 billion to the authorized
amount under the Program would provide it with adequate capacity to
mitigate an unexpected increase in its liquidity needs and any
potential decrease in the aggregate amount under its Credit Facility.
NSCC does not anticipate issuing Notes up to the maximum authorized
amount in the near term, and believes the proposal would allow it to
grow the Program as necessary. NSCC is not proposing any other change
to the Prefunded Liquidity Program, which will continue under the same
terms and conditions as described in the 2015 Advance Notice.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expected Effect on and Management of Risks
    As described above, NSCC believes the proposal to increase the
authorized aggregate amount of Notes it can issue under the Prefunded
Liquidity Program would enable it to better manage its liquidity risks
by providing it with flexibility to increase its reliance on the
Program, as necessary and appropriate, in meeting its liquidity needs
and associated regulatory requirements.
    The Prefunded Liquidity Program, like other liquidity resources,
involves certain risks that are standard in any commercial paper or
extendible note program. Such risks were addressed in the 2015 Advance
Notice and include the risk that NSCC does not have sufficient funds to
repay issued Notes when they mature. By increasing the authorized
aggregate amount of the Prefunded Liquidity Program, and thus
potentially the aggregate amount of outstanding Notes that it will have
to repay upon maturity, NSCC may be further exposed to this risk.
However, as discussed in the 2015 Advance Notice, NSCC continues to
believe this risk is remote, as the proceeds of the Program would be
used only in the event of a Member default, and NSCC would replenish
that cash, as it would replenish any of its liquidity resources that
are used to facilitate settlement in the event of a Member default,
with the proceeds of the close out of that defaulted Member's
portfolio. This notwithstanding, in the event that proceeds from the
close out are insufficient to fully repay a liquidity borrowing, then
NSCC would look to its loss waterfall to repay any outstanding
liquidity borrowings. NSCC has also further mitigated this risk by
structuring the Prefunded Liquidity Program so that the maturity dates
of the issued Notes are sufficiently staggered, which would provide
NSCC with time to complete the close out of a defaulted Member's
portfolio. As described above, NSCC would continue to follow its
internal guidelines in the management of the Program to stagger the
maturity dates of the issued Notes, and to extend the weighted average
maturity of the issued Notes to maintain this staggered structure.
    A second risk is that NSCC may be unable to issue new Notes as
issued Notes mature, or that there is a decrease in investor interest
in commercial paper. As discussed in the 2015 Advance Notice, this risk
is mitigated by the fact that NSCC maintains a number of different
liquidity resources, described above, and would not depend

on the Prefunded Liquidity Program as its sole source of liquidity.
    NSCC believes that the significant systemic risk mitigation
benefits of providing NSCC with additional, prefunded liquid resources
outweigh these risks.
Consistency With the Clearing Supervision Act
    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To
mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial
stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management
standards for systemically important financial market utilities and
strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market
utilities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \15\ authorizes
the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment,
clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities,
like NSCC, and financial institutions engaged in designated activities
for which the Commission is the supervisory agency or the appropriate
financial regulator. Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act
\16\ states that the objectives and principles for the risk management
standards prescribed under Section 805(a) shall be to, among other
things, promote robust risk management, promote safety and soundness,
reduce systemic risks, and support the stability of the broader
financial system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \16\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall impact of the proposal is to reduce the liquidity risks
associated with NSCC's operation as a central counterparty by providing
it with additional, prefunded liquidity to complete end-of-day
settlement in the event of a Member default. By reducing NSCC's
liquidity risks, the proposal would promote its robust risk management.
Given its important role in mitigating risks faced by its Members and
the financial markets, a reduction in NSCC's liquidity risk would also
reduce systemic risk, and would promote the safety, soundness and
stability in the broader financial system. Therefore, NSCC believes the
proposal is consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision
Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC also believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, NSCC
believes the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under
the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Act requires that a covered
clearing agency hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the
minimum liquidity resource requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) in
each relevant currency for which the covered clearing agency has
payment obligations owed to clearing members.\19\ Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14)
under the Act defines ``qualifying liquidity resources,'' in part, as
cash held either at the central bank of issue or at creditworthy
commercial banks.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceeds of the Program are cash held at either the FRBNY or a
bank counterparty that has been approved pursuant to the Clearing
Agency Investment Policy, and, as such, are considered ``qualifying
liquid resources'' under Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14).\21\ These proceeds are
available for NSCC to draw as needed to complete end-of-day settlement
in the event of the default of a Member, and, as such, are one of
NSCC's liquidity resources that it maintains in order to meet its
settlement obligations under a wide range of foreseeable stress
scenarios that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the
affiliated family of Members that would generate the largest aggregate
payment obligation for NSCC in extreme but plausible market conditions,
in compliance with NSCC's requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i). The
proposal to increase the authorized amount of Notes NSCC may issue
under the Program would enable NSCC to increase the amount of
qualifying liquid resources it holds for these purposes. Therefore, the
proposal would enable NSCC to continue to meet its requirements under
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) in the event its liquidity needs increase.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice, and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) The
date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the
date that any additional information requested by the Commission is
received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change
if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed
changes that are implemented.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2017-807 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-807. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Advance Notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Advance
Notice between the Commission and any person, other than those that may
be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-807
and should be submitted on or before January 17, 2018.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28221 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72521]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4734-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4734-DR), dated August 31, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective September 4, 2023.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23211 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18193-18194]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12626-002]

Northern Illinois Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

April 2, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12626-002.
    c. Date filed: March 31, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Northern Illinois Hydropower, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Dresden Island Project.
    f. Location: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dresden Island Dam on the
Illinois River, in the Town of Morris, Grundy County, Illinois.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Damon Zdunich, Northern Illinois Hydropower,
LLC, 801 Oakland Avenue, Joliet, IL 60435,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Nicholas Palso,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. Project Description: The Dresden Island Project would utilize
the Corps of Engineer's existing Dresden Island Dam and reservoir and
would consist of: (1) A new 75-foot by 125-foot concrete powerhouse
between headgate sections 10 through 16 containing three generating
units with a total installed capacity of 10.2 MW; (2) a 50-foot by 50-
foot switchyard adjacent and to the north of the powerhouse building;
(3) a new .08-mile-long transmission line; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of
about 60,000 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those
who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's
Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for
the particular application.
    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions.
    All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' or ``COMPETING APPLICATION;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8072 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


RESPONSES FROM STATES ON EPA e-MANIFEST QUESTIONS

Rev. January 10, 2007

Elizabeth A. Bols

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-4" \h \z \u

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207319"  Survey regarding states opinion on a national e-Manifest data system	  PAGEREF _Toc156207319 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207320"  Documentation sent to states	  PAGEREF _Toc156207320 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207321"  Survey Results	  PAGEREF _Toc156207321 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207322"  What states responded	  PAGEREF _Toc156207322 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207323"  States use of manifest data	  PAGEREF _Toc156207323 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207324"  Who states think should be required to submit	  PAGEREF _Toc156207324 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207325"  States opinion of importance of data quality and timeliness	  PAGEREF _Toc156207325 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207326"  Survey regarding states opinion their states CBI as it may impact a national e-Manifest data system	  PAGEREF _Toc156207326 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207327"  Documentation sent to states	  PAGEREF _Toc156207327 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207328"  Survey Results	  PAGEREF _Toc156207328 \h  16

Survey regarding states opinion on a national e-Manifest data system

Documentation sent to states

Dear ASTSWMO representative:

For more than 20 years, the hazardous waste manifest system has relied on the creation of a paper trail to track hazardous waste shipments from cradle-to-grave. Waste generators create multicopy paper manifest forms to show the transportation routing of their waste shipments and the composition and quantity of the materials being shipped. Each handler signs the manifest by hand, until it is signed by the final waste management facility to show the waste shipment was received. Copies signed by all parties are retained in company files, and the final copy verifying receipt by the treatment, storage and disposal facility is mailed back to the generator to close the tracking loop. About 28 states also collect manifests from generators and TSDFs, and the data are manually keyed into state tracking databases to help oversee waste management trends and assess fees.

Due to the volume of manifests circulated each year (more than 2.5 million) and the number of copies that must be signed sequentially and retained in files for inspection, the manifest system produces some of the largest paperwork burdens in the EPA. Compliance with the manifest system costs waste handlers and states more than $193 million annually. For this reason, EPA has been pursuing for several years a project that would transition the manifest from a paper-based system to a mostly electronic approach. The EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is on the verge of proposing regulatory language that would allow the building of this system.

ASTSWMO, through the Hazardous Waste Program Operations Task Force, is representing state interests on this effort by sitting on an advisory group with EPA.   The Program Operations Task Force would like to solicit your input on this soon to be proposed e-manifest system.   We ask that you fill out the attached survey and return it to <EMAIL_ADDRESS>by December       .  We will compile the results and use them to identify and represent to EPA the states concerns about any emanifest proposals.

For more information on the e-manifest and the EPA(s efforts to date please see the following web pages:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/e-man.htm  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/faqs.htm

Thank you

ASTSWMO Program Operations Task Force

Survey of States on Manifest Data

1) 	State you represent: ______________________________________

	Your  Name: __________________________________________

	E-mail Address: ________________________________________

2) What does your state currently use manifest data for? (Check all that apply)

We do not presently use manifest data

We use manifest data to collect a state fee

We use manifest data for Enforcement

We use manifest data to assist generators with regulatory requirements

We use manifest for routine reporting (Including Biennial Report)

We use manifest data to track waste from cradle to grave

We do not presently use manifest data but we would be interested in using the e-manifest data in the future.

We use manifest data for _________________________________________________

					(Please list all other state uses of manifest data)

3) When an e-manifest system is launched, please list your preference on which users should be optional and which should be mandatory.

			Optional	Mandatory

LQG’s

SQG’s

CESQG’s

Transporters

TSD Facilities

4) How important is the data quality of the e-manifest?

Very Important - We use or will use all or almost all the data fields on the manifest.

Important – We use or will use certain key fields that must be high quality

Not Important – We do not use manifest data or need high quality data

5) How important is the timeliness of the receipt of the data?

Within 5 days of the shipment

Within a month of the shipment

Within a year of the shipment

Other ______________________________________

6) Do you wish to participate in a national conference call to discuss your needs from a national e-manifest system?

Yes   			No

7) Please feel free to attach additional information  relating to your thoughts or concerns about a federal e-manifest system. (Ex.- impacts on state program, ideas for utilizing manifest data that you are not currently using)

Please return this survey to      PRIVATE <EMAIL_ADDRESS>MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor <EMAIL_ADDRESS> or fax to Ray Gordon at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Recent partial response from Florida (2007) that has been added into the results

Elizabeth,

Here are my survey responses. I'm not sure why we didn't respond immediately.

3) When an e-manifest system is launched, please list your preference on which users should be optional and which should be mandatory.

			Optional		Mandatory

LQG's			x

SQG's			x

CESQG's		x

Transporters				x

TSD Facilities 				x

4) How important is the data quality of the e-manifest?

	Very Important - We use or will use all or almost all the data fields on the manifest. (if it is uniformly available - I.E. required for TSDFs)

5) How important is the timeliness of the receipt of the data?

	Within a month of the shipment (however - E-Manifest must be completed before shipment or a paper manifest must be on the truck for emergencies)

6) Do you wish to participate in a national conference call to discuss your needs from a national e-manifest system?

Yes               Florida    Jack Griffith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Survey Results

What states responded

	Contact

Returned	Name	Email	Call

Alabama	AL

Alaska	AK

Arizona	AZ

Arkansas	AR	1	Melanie Foster	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

California	CA

Colorado	CO

Connecticut	CT	1	David Westcott	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Delaware	DE

Dist. of Columbia	DC

Florida	FL

Jack Griffith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Added partial response 1/10/07

Georgia	GA	1	Verona Barnes	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>?

Guam	GU

Hawaii	HI

Idaho	ID	1	John Brueck	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Illinois	IL

Indiana	IN

Iowa	IA

Kansas	KS	1	Jim Rudeen	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Kentucky	KY	1	Bill Schneider	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Louisiana	LA	1	James Miller	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Maine	ME

Maryland	MD	1	Butch Dye	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Massachusetts	MA	1	Michael Hurley	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Michigan	MI

Minnesota	MN

Mississippi	MS

Missouri	MO	1	David Giarratano	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Montana	MT	1	Robert Reinke	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Nebraska	NE	1	Morgan Leibrandt	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Nevada	NV	1	Jeff Denison	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

New Hampshire	NH	1	Ray Gordon	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

New Jersey	NJ	1	Ferdinand Scaccetti	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

New Mexico	NM

New York	NY	1	Deborah Aldrich	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

North Carolina	NC

North Dakota	ND	1	Curtis Erickson	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Ohio	OH	1	Paula Canter	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Oklahoma	OK	1	Jon Roberts	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Oregon	OR	1	Nancy Dollar	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Pennsylvania	PA	1	Robert Finkel	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Puerto Rico	PR

Rhode Island	RI	1	Mark Dennen	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

South Carolina	SC	1	Clyde Buchanan	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

South Dakota	SD	1	Carrie Jacobson	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Tennessee	TN

Texas	TX

Utah	UT	1	Rusty Lundberg	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Vermont	VT	1	Linda Joyal	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Virginia	VA	1	Steve Frazier	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>N

Virgin Islands	VI

Washington	WA	1	Jean Rushing	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

West Virginia	WV

Wisconsin	WI	1	Aggie Cook	  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y

Wyoming	WY

	29

States use of manifest data

Uses of Manifest Data

Not used	Fee	Enforc	Assit	Report	Track	Other

Alabama	AL

	Alaska	AK

	Arizona	AZ

	Arkansas	AR

1	1

	1	Discrepancy reporting

California	CA

	Colorado	CO

	Connecticut	CT

	1	1

1	Phase One site investigations and Property transfer filings

Delaware	DE

	Dist. of Columbia	DC

	Florida	FL

	We use or will use all or almost all the data fields

on the manifest.

Georgia	GA

1	1	1	1	1

	Guam	GU

	Hawaii	HI

	Idaho	ID	1

Interested in using e-manifest data

Illinois	IL

	Indiana	IN

	Iowa	IA

	Kansas	KS

1	1	1	1

Kentucky	KY	1

Interested in using e-manifest data and discrepancy reports

Louisiana	LA	1

Interested in using e-manifest data

Maine	ME

	Maryland	MD

	1	1	1	1

	Massachusetts	MA

1	1	1	1	1	Polciy making, program planning

Michigan	MI

	Minnesota	MN

	Mississippi	MS

	Missouri	MO

1	1	1	1	1	Statistical Rports (How much generated)

Montana	MT

	1	1	1	1

	Nebraska	NE	1

Nevada	NV

	1

New Hampshire	NH

	New Jersey	NJ

1	1	1	1	1	Site Remediation and Cost Recovery

New Mexico	NM

	New York	NY

1	1	1	1	1

	North Carolina	NC

	North Dakota	ND

	1	1	1	1

	Ohio	OH

	Interested in using e-manifest data

Oklahoma	OK	1

Oregon	OR

1	1	1	1	1

	Pennsylvania	PA

1	1

1	1

	Puerto Rico	PR

	Rhode Island	RI

1	1

	1	Identify BR Non-reporters

South Carolina	SC	1

South Dakota	SD	1

Tennessee	TN

	Texas	TX

	Utah	UT

	1	1

1

	Vermont	VT

1	1	1	1

FOIA

Virginia	VA	1

1

Virgin Islands	VI

	Washington	WA

1	1	1	1	1

	West Virginia	WV

	Wisconsin	WI

1	1	1	1	1

	Wyoming	WY

	Totals

8	13	20	15	14	16

	Did not get from FL

Who states think should be required to submit

LQG's	SQG's	CESQG's	Transporter	TSDF

Optional	Mandatory	Optional	Mandatory	Optional	Mandatory	Optional Mandatory	Optional	Mandatory

Alabama	AL

Alaska	AK

Arizona	AZ

Arkansas	AR	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

California	CA

Colorado	CO

Connecticut	CT	 	1	1	 	1	 	 	1	 	1

Delaware	DE

Dist. of Columbia	DC

Florida* 1/10/07	FL	 x	 	 x	 	 x	 	 	 x	 	 x

Georgia	GA	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Guam	GU

Hawaii	HI

Idaho	ID	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Illinois	IL

Indiana	IN

Iowa	IA

Kansas	KS	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Kentucky	KY	 	1	 	1	1	 	1	 	 	1

Louisiana	LA	 	1	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1

Maine	ME

Maryland	MD	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Massachusetts	MA	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Michigan	MI	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Minnesota	MN

Mississippi	MS

Missouri	MO

Montana	MT	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Nebraska	NE	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Nevada	NV	 	1	 	1	1	 	1	 	 	1

New Hampshire	NH	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

New Jersey	NJ	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

New Mexico	NM

New York	NY	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

North Carolina	NC

North Dakota	ND	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Ohio	OH	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	 	 	1

Oklahoma	OK	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Oregon	OR	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Pennsylvania	PA	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Puerto Rico	PR

Rhode Island	RI	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1	 	1

South Carolina	SC	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

South Dakota	SD	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Tennessee	TN

Texas	TX

Utah	UT	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Vermont	VT	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1	 	1

Virginia	VA	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Virgin Islands	VI

Washington	WA	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

West Virginia	WV

Wisconsin	WI	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

Wyoming	WY

Totals

13	16	14	15	23	6	13	15	6	23

New totals with FL

14	16	15	15	24	6	13	16	6	24

States opinion of importance of data quality and timeliness

Importance of Data Quality	Timeliness of Data

Very	Important	Not	<5	<Month	<year	Other

Alabama	AL

Alaska	AK

Arizona	AZ

Arkansas	AR	 	1	 	 	1

California	CA

Colorado	CO

Connecticut	CT	1	 	 	 	1

Delaware	DE

Dist. of Columbia	DC

Florida 1/10/07	FL	 x	 	 	 	 x

Georgia	GA	1	 	 	 	1

Guam	GU

Hawaii	HI

Idaho	ID	1	 	 	1

Illinois	IL

Indiana	IN

Iowa	IA

Kansas	KS	 	1	 	 	1

Kentucky	KY	 	 	1	 	1

Louisiana	LA	1	 	 	1

Maine	ME

Maryland	MD	 	1	 	1

Massachusetts	MA	1	 	 	 	1

Michigan	MI

Minnesota	MN

Mississippi	MS

Missouri	MO

Montana	MT	1	 	 	1

Nebraska	NE	 	 	1

Nevada	NV	1	 	 	 	1

New Hampshire	NH	1	 	 	 	1

New Jersey	NJ	1	 	 	 	1

New Mexico	NM

New York	NY	1	 	 	1	 	 	Paper is going to be 10 days

North Carolina	NC

North Dakota	ND	 	1	 	 	1

Ohio	OH	 	1	 	 	1

Oklahoma	OK	1	 	 	 	1

Oregon	OR	1	 	 	 	 	 	Real Time

Pennsylvania	PA	 	1	 	 	1

Puerto Rico	PR

Rhode Island	RI	 	 	 	 	 	 	3 months

South Carolina	SC	 	 	1

South Dakota	SD	 	1	 	 	 	 	State copies not required, but generator copy is important

Tennessee	TN

Texas	TX

Utah	UT	 	1	 	 	1

Vermont	VT	1	 	 	 	1

Virginia	VA	 	 	1	 	 	 	not applicable

Virgin Islands	VI

Washington	WA	1	 	 	 	 	1

West Virginia	WV

Wisconsin	WI	 	1	 	 	1

Wyoming	WY

	Totals

14	9	4	5	16	1

	New totals with FL

15	9	4	5	17	1

Survey regarding states opinion their states CBI as it may impact a national e-Manifest data system

Documentation sent to states

>>> "Elizabeth Bols"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>12/22/06 10:29 AM >>>

Hello from Michigan

I am sending this email to any state that responded an interest on the survey distributed in December 2005 through ASTSWMO, from Robert Haggerty, NY and Ray Gordon, NH, on behalf of the states in the e-manifest workgroup.  Since, Ray is no longer on the workgroup I will be filling in and working with Robert to keep you informed.

We just had another conference call/meeting.  There are representatives from EPA and DOT on the work group and the following individuals represent the states.

Robert Haggerty	New York DEC

Ed Hammerberg	Maryland MDE

Ed Karmilovich		Pennsylvania DEP

Ferd Scaccetti		New Jersey DEP

Elizabeth Bols		Michigan DEQ

Ann Carberry		California EPA

Jack Griffith		Florida DEP

The rest of this rather long email will address the following

(1) where are we in the process of implementing a Federal e-manifest system

(2) fill you in on some of the results from the last survey

(3) what your state does/would do with regard to CBI and manifest data.  We would appreciate your response by emailing me<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by January 10, 2007 so I have time to compile the data before the next conference call.

(1) WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL E-MANIFEST SYSTEM

I have attached the following documents that you may want to read.  The first one is a copy of the "Statement of Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on September 28, 2006."  The second document is a copy of the proposed Senate bill that was in the 109th Congress committee.

The workgroup has been directed by EPA-HQ Management "to proceed with the final rule development steps for e-Manifest on the assumption that legislation will eventually be enacted, and that the legislation will most likely include many of the features that were included in the draft bill (S. 3871) that was introduced in the 109th Congress by Senator Thune.  So, we are resuming activity with the workgroup to develop a final rule that would implement e-Manifest consistently with the Thune bill, recognizing that we will probably need to adjust the rule language as needed as the 110th Congress puts its own mark on the subject matter."

We have another conference call in January to review draft rules.

(2) FILL YOU IN ON SOME OF THE RESULTS FROM THE LAST SURVEY

This is the correspondence that accompanied the survey and the survey (to jog your memory).

Dear ASTSWMO representative:

For more than 20 years, the hazardous waste manifest system has relied on the creation of a paper trail to track hazardous waste shipments from cradle-to-grave. Waste generators create multicopy paper manifest forms to show the transportation routing of their waste shipments and the composition and quantity of the materials being shipped. Each handler signs the manifest by hand, until it is signed by the final waste management facility to show the waste shipment was received. Copies signed by all parties are retained in company files, and the final copy verifying receipt by the treatment, storage and disposal facility is mailed back to the generator to close the tracking loop. About 28 states also collect manifests from generators and TSDFs, and the data are manually keyed into state tracking databases to help oversee waste management trends and assess fees.

Due to the volume of manifests circulated each year (more than 2.5 million) and the number of copies that must be signed sequentially and retained in files for inspection, the manifest system produces some of the largest paperwork burdens in the EPA. Compliance with the manifest system costs waste handlers and states more than $193 million annually. For this reason, EPA has been pursuing for several years a project that would transition the manifest from a paper-based system to a mostly electronic approach. The EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is on the verge of proposing regulatory language that would allow the building of this system.

ASTSWMO, through the Hazardous Waste Program Operations Task Force, is representing state interests on this effort by sitting on an advisory group with EPA.   The Program Operations Task Force would like to solicit your input on this soon to be proposed e-manifest system.   We ask that you fill out the attached survey and return it to <EMAIL_ADDRESS>by December       .  We will compile the results and use them to identify and represent to EPA the states concerns about any emanifest proposals.

For more information on the e-manifest and the EPA*s efforts to date please see the following web pages:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/e-man.htm  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/faqs.htm

Thank you

ASTSWMO Program Operations Task Force

Results from some of the questions on the Survey of States on Manifest Data

3) When an e-manifest system is launched, please list your preference on which users should be optional and which should be mandatory.

			Optional	Mandatory

LQG*s			15		16

SQG*s			17		14

CESQG*s		26		  5

Transporters		16		14

TSD Facilities 		 7		24

4) How important is the data quality of the e-manifest?

	Very Important - We use or will use all or almost all the data fields on the manifest.	17

	Important - We use or will use certain key fields that must be high quality 		 9

	Not Important - We do not use manifest data or need high quality data		 4

5) How important is the timeliness of the receipt of the data?

	Within five days of the shipment	  5

	Within a month of the shipment	18

	Within a year of the shipment	  1

6) Do you wish to participate in a national conference call to discuss your needs from a national e-manifest system?

Yes  (if you know someone in a state that is not listed that may want updates, please forward this email to them and have them respond to me <EMAIL_ADDRESS>so I can add them to the list).

[Note: crossed out names email came back as undelivered]

STATE		NAME			STATE		NAME

Arkansas	Melanie Foster		Connecticut	David Westcott

Georgia		Verona Barnes 		Idaho		John Brueck

Kansas		Jim Rudeen 		Kentucky	Bill Schneider

Louisiana	James Miller 		Maryland	Butch Dye

Massachusetts	Michael Hurley 		Missouri		David Giarratano

Montana	Robert Reinke 		Nebraska	Morgan Leibrandt

Nevada		Jeff Denison 		New Jersey	Ferdinand Scaccetti

New York	Deborah Aldrich 		North Dakota	Curtis Erickson

Ohio		Paula Canter 		Oklahoma	Jon Roberts

Oregon		Nancy Dollar 		Pennsylvania	Robert Finkel

Rhode Island	Mark Dennen 		South Carolina	Clyde Buchanan

South Dakota	Carrie Jacobson 		Utah		Rusty Lundberg

Vermont		Linda Joyal		Virginia		Steve Frazier

Washington	Jean Rushing 		Wisconsin	Aggie Cook

(3) WHAT YOUR STATE DOES/WOULD DO WITH REGARD TO CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) AND MANIFEST DATA

As a state representative we can take it upon ourselves to ask other states questions and we do not have to go through the monumental paperwork task that EPA has to go through, so that is why we use this informal process to as you questions.

QUESTION

It does not matter if your state currently collects manifests, films/scans manifest, or even has data in a data system.  What we are trying to determine is if your state did any of the aforementioned would the data it be available to the public or could any of the manifest information be withheld because of a CBI request? Or would it automatically be withheld because if would pre-determined to be CBI?

Survey Results

‑3666<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Idaho

X	To answer your part 3 question regarding CBI, Idaho DEQ at one point had the commercial RCRA C TSD land disposal facility located in SW Idaho claim CBI on their Biennial Report data because they felt it revealed their client list of hazardous waste generators who shipped waste to them.  When we were able to explain to them and have them understand that the data was available in multiple places by using different searches of the BR database by searching for generators that shipped waste to their facility, they dropped their CBI claim on their Biennial Report.  I think the same can hold true for this CBI concern on electronic manifests. I believe the information can be available through a number of methods and not just available in one place so the CBI argument is less valid when companies want to claim CBI.  Also as an authorized state, EPA Region 10 is very fastidious about Idaho DEQ's public information being very available and must be equivalent to 40 CFR Part 2 as required for authorized states in 40 CFR Part 271.17.  Idaho's equivalent public information and CBI requirements can be found in the Idaho Public Records Act at Idaho Code Title 9, Chapter 3, starting at section 335.    John Brueck. Idaho DEQ

Ohio	X

Thanks for the update.  In response to your CBI question, based on the fact that most of the Ohio TSDs currently claim confidentiality of their customer identification info on their HW Annual Report, I would expect them to try to do so for manifest data also.  Laura Lopez at OSW/AIB is also concerned about the effect of CBI claims on manifest data and has an issue paper drafted for the Change Management Biennial Report expert group to review, but from what she said Tuesday on our monthly Coordination Group conference call I get the impression she has it on hold until Matt Hale is briefed and OSW formally commits to using manifest data as the future BR vehicle.  If you want to see the issue paper I have a version of it that should be close to or same as hers.  I commented but she drafted it.  Paula Canter Ohio

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: October 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 64372-64373]
[DOCID:fr29oc08-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58838; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2008-04]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Fourteenth Substantive Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association Plan and the Tenth
Substantive Amendment to the Restated Consolidated Quotation Plan

October 23, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 21, 2008, the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan
and Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan participants
(``Participants'') \3\ submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposals to amend the CTA and CQ Plans
(collectively, the ``Plans'').\4\ The proposals represent the
fourteenth substantive amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA
Plan (``Fourteenth Amendment to the CTA Plan'') and the tenth
substantive amendment to the Restated CQ Plan (``Tenth Amendment to the
CQ Plan''), and seek to add BATS Exchange, Inc. as a new Participant to
each Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The Participants are the American Stock Exchange LLC (n/k/a
NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC); Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., (n/k/a NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc.); Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Arca, Inc.; and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, Inc.)
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (order approving CTA Plan); 15009 (July 28,
1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) (order temporarily approving CQ
Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980), 45 FR 6521 (order permanently
approving CQ Plan). The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect
and disseminate last sale price information for listed securities,
is a ``transaction reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17
CFR 242.601, and a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608
under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which
markets collect and disseminate bid/ask quotation information for
listed securities, is also a ``national market system plan'' under
Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under the Act,\5\ the Participants
designated the Amendments as concerned solely with the administration
of the Plans. As a result, the Amendments have become effective upon
filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the Amendments, the Commission may summarily abrogate the Amendments
and require that the Amendments be refiled in accordance with paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 608 and reviewed in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
Rule 608, if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors,
or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

 A. Description and Purpose of the Amendments

    The Amendments propose to add BATS Exchange, Inc. as a new
Participant to each Plan. The text of the proposed Amendments is
available on the CTA's Web site (http://www.nysedata.com/cta), at the
principal office of the CTA, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

B. Additional Information Required by Rule 608(a)

1. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.

2. Implementation of the Amendments
    Because the Amendments constitute Ministerial Amendments under both
clause (1) of Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and clause (1) of Section
IV(c) of the CQ Plan, the Chairman of CTA and the CQ Plan's Operating
Committee may submit these Amendments to the Commission on behalf of
the Participants in the Plans. Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under the
Act,\6\ the Participants designated Ministerial Amendments as
amendments concerned solely with the administration of the Plans, and
therefore the Amendments become effective upon filing with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Development and Implementation Phases
    See Item B(2) above.
4. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The proposed Amendments do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act. The Participants do not believe that the proposed
plan Amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory
for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
    Not applicable.
6. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan
    See Item B(2) above.
7. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment
    a. Terms and Conditions of Access
    See Item A above.
    b. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    See Item A above.
    c. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
    d. Dispute Resolution
    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2008-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2008-04. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the Amendments that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Amendments between the Commission and any person, other than those that
may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the Amendments also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
CTA. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/
CQ-2008-04 and should be submitted on or before November 19, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25806 Filed 10-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14379-14381]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0301; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-22-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD) Models Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: Following a review of operational data of the Tay 651-54
engine, it has been found that the actual stress levels in the Tay 651-
54 engine High Pressure Compressor (HPC) stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and 12 discs
were higher than those originally assumed and therefore the approved
lives needed to be reduced.
    We are proposing this AD to prevent HPC stages 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12
discs from exceeding the approved reduced life limits, which could
result in an uncontained failure of a disc and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG; Eschenweg 11, D-15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; telephone +49 (0) 33 7086 1768; fax +49
(0) 33 7086 3356 for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0301;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-22-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0092, dated April 17, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Following a review of operational data of the Tay 651-54 engine,
it has been found that the actual stress levels in the Tay 651-54
engine High Pressure Compressor (HPC) stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and 12 discs
were higher than those originally assumed and therefore the approved
lives needed to be reduced.
    As Tay 651-54 service run HPC discs may be installed on Tay 620-
15 and Tay 650-15 engine models, it is necessary to reduce the
maximum approved lives of the affected HPC disc serial numbers
installed on Tay 620-15 and Tay 650-15 engines as well.
    The approved lives of the affected HPC stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and 12
discs specified in this Airworthiness Directive supersede the
approved lives given in the Time Limits Manuals, Chapter 05-10-01.
    Exceeding of the approved life limits could potentially result
in non-contained disc failure.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG has issued Alert Service
Bulletin TAY-72-A1740, dated February 11, 2009. The actions described
in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, they have notified us of the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA, and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $100,000 per product. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
$1,000,850.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Formerly Rolls-Royce plc):
Docket No. FAA-2010-0301; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-22-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 26, 2010.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
models Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 turbofan engines.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker F28 Mark
0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes and Boeing 727 series airplanes.

Reason

    (d) Following a review of operational data of the Tay 651-54
engine, it has been found that the actual stress levels in the Tay
651-54 engine High Pressure Compressor (HPC) stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and
12 discs were higher than those originally assumed and therefore the
approved lives needed to be reduced. We are issuing this AD to
prevent HPC stages 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12 discs from exceeding the
approved reduced life limits, which could result in an uncontained
failure of a disc and damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, amend the approved Airworthiness Limitation Section to
incorporate the new, reduced life limits as follows:

For Tay 651-54 Engines

    (1) The maximum approved lives (MAL) of the High Pressure
Compressor (HPC) rotor discs are reduced to the MALs specified in
the following Table 1 of this AD:

                           Table 1--Tay 651-54 Engine Reduced Disc MAL by Part Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   For                            Part Number                          the MAL is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) HPC Stage 1 Disc....................  JR18049....................  18,800 cycles.
(ii) HPC Stage 3 Disc...................  JR18743....................  18,100 cycles.
(iii) HPC Stage 6 Disc..................  JR18748....................  19,300 cycles.
(iv) HPC Stage 7 Disc...................  JR17365....................  17,300 cycles.
(v) HPC Stage 12 Disc...................  JR31928....................  18,900 cycles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Tay 620-15 and Tay 650-15 Engines

    (2) The MAL of certain High Pressure Compressor (HPC) rotor
discs are reduced. The affected disc serial numbers and the reduced
MAL are defined in Rolls-Royce Deutschland Non-Modification Service
Bulletin TAY-72-A1740, dated February 11, 2009.
    (3) Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this AD,
no alternative replacement times may be approved for these parts.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (g) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0092, dated
April 17, 2009, and Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Alert
Service Bulletin TAY-72-A1740, dated February 11, 2009, for related
information. Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG; Eschenweg
11, D-15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; telephone +49 (0) 33 7086
1768; fax +49 (0) 33 7086 3356, for a copy of this service
information.
    (h) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 18, 2010.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6584 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Cost per Ton for NSPS for Stationary CI ICE FROM: Tanya Parise, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to estimate the cost per ton of pollutant removed for the proposed new source performance standards ( NSPS) for stationary compression ignition ( CI) internal combustion engines ( ICE). This memorandum also presents the cost per ton of other control technologies EPA considered.

Introduction The proposed rule requires stationary CI engines to comply with standards that have been promulgated for nonroad CI engines. These standards consist of various tiered levels that increase in stringency. Although the proposed rule requires stationary CI engines to meet all tiers, EPA expects that stationary CI engines would generally emit the same levels as nonroad engines until Tier 4 is required, even in the absence of the rule. For the purpose of estimating reductions for stationary CI engines, the EPA does not take credit for reductions until Tier 4 is in effect. This means that the baseline level for estimating reductions is the tier level prior to Tier 4. The EPA expects that nitrogen oxides ( NO x) adsorbers and catalyzed diesel particulate filters ( CDPF) will be used to meet Tier 4 levels and are expected to reduce NO x and particulate matter ( PM) emissions, respectively, by at least 90 percent.

Control Cost The methodology for estimating the cost of these control technologies is presented in the memorandum entitled " Control Costs for NO x adsorbers and CDPF for CI Engines," included in the docket ( Docket ID No. OAR 2005 0029). The average annual cost of control for NO x adsorbers and CDPF were each estimated at $ 1 per horsepower ( HP). The combined annual cost of control was estimated at $ 2/ HP. To determine the annual control cost per engine, EPA multiplied the combined annual cost 1US EPA. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling   Compression Ignition. EPA420 P 04 009. April 2004. NR 009c.

2 of control by the average engine size for each HP range. The total annual cost of control per engine for each engine size range is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Annual Cost of Control per Engine w/ NO x Adsorbers and CDPF HP Range Average HP Annual Control Cost ($/ HP) Annual Control Cost per Engine ($/ yr)

50 75 63 2 126 75 100 88 2 176 100 175 135 2 270 175 300 238 2 476 300 600 450 2 900 600 750 675 2 1,350 750 1,200 975 2 1,950 1,200 3,000 2,100 2 4,200 > 3,000 5,000 2 10,000 Emission Reduction The emission factors corresponding to the various tiers were obtained from Table A. 2 of EPA's emission factors for nonroad CI engine modeling. 1 To determine the pollutant reduction per engine as a result of applying Tier 4 add on control, EPA subtracted the Tier 4 level from the previous tier level. The resulting emission factors representing the reduction per engine for each size range are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Emission Factors for NO x and PM 3 Reduction ( g HP

hr ) x Average HP x hrs yr x 0.0022046 lb g 2,000 lb ton HP Range Emission Factor ( g/ HP hr)

NOx PM Previous Tier Tier 4* Reduction Previous Tier Tier 4** Reduction 50 75*** 3.0 0.30 2.700 0.20 0.0184 0.1816 75 100 3.0 0.276 2.724 0.30 0.0092 0.2908 100 175 2.5 0.276 2.224 0.22 0.0092 0.2108 175 300 2.5 0.276 2.224 0.15 0.0092 0.1408 300 600 2.5 0.276 2.224 0.15 0.0092 0.1408 600 750 2.5 0.276 2.224 0.15 0.0092 0.1408 750 1,200 2.392 0.46 1.932 0.069 0.0184 0.0506 1,200 3,000 4.1 0.46 3.640 0.069 0.0184 0.0506 > 3,000 4.1 0.46 3.640 0.069 0.0184 0.0506 * Tier 4 for NO x is based on the use NO x adsorbers. ** Tier 4 for PM is based on the use of CDPF. *** NO x add on control is not required for this size range. Estimates shown are for information purposes only, assuming a hypothetical 90 percent reduction of NO x from the previous tier.

Using the emission reduction per engine shown in Table 2, the yearly emission reduction per engine for each HP range was calculated using the following equation:

where:

Reduction = The reduction of NO x or PM per engine for each HP range, in g/ HPhr from Table 2, Average HP = Average engine size for each HP range, from Table 1, hrs/ yr = Average hours of operation ( 1,000 hrs/ yr for prime engines; 37 hrs/ yr for emergency engines), 0.0022046 = Conversion factor, in lb/ g, and 2,000 = Conversion factor, in ton/ lb.

Based on the above equation and the emission factors representing the reduction per 4 engine in Table 2, EPA estimated the reductions per engine per year presented in Table 3. 5 Table 3. Estimated Reduction of NO x and PM per Engine w/ NO x Adsorbers and CDPF HP Range Reduction per Engine ( tpy)

NOx PM Prime Emergency Prime Emergency 50 75* 0.188 0.007 0.0126 0.0005 75 100 0.264 0.010 0.0282 0.0010 100 175 0.331 0.012 0.0314 0.0012 175 300 0.583 0.022 0.0369 0.0014 300 600 1.103 0.041 0.0698 0.0026 600 750 1.655 0.061 0.1048 0.0039 750 1,200 2.076 0.077 0.0544 0.0020 1,200 3,000 8.426 0.312 0.1171 0.0043 > 3,000 20.062 0.742 0.2789 0.0103 * NO x add on control is not required for this size range. Estimates shown are for information purposes only and are based on a hypothetical 90 percent reduction of NO x from the previous tier.

Cost per ton Based on the annual cost of control per engine shown in Table 1 and the reduction per engine shown in Table 3, EPA estimated the cost of control per ton of pollutant removed as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Cost of Control per Ton of Pollutant Removed w/ NO x Adsorbers and CDPF HP Range Cost per ton NOx Removed ($/ ton) Cost per ton PM Removed ($/ ton) Cost per ton NOx+ PM Removed ($/ ton)

Prime Emergency Prime Emergency Prime Emergency 50 75* 672 18,162 4,996 135,015 630 17,017 75 100 666 18,002 6,239 168,630 602 16,266 100 175 816 22,049 8,607 232,626 745 20,140 175 300 816 22,049 12,886 348,278 767 20,736 HP Range Cost per ton NOx Removed ($/ ton) Cost per ton PM Removed ($/ ton) Cost per ton NOx+ PM Removed ($/ ton)

Prime Emergency Prime Emergency Prime Emergency 6 300 600 816 22,049 12,866 348,278 767 20,736 600 750 816 22,049 12,866 348,278 767 20,736 750 1,200 939 25,382 35,857 969,121 915 24,734 1,200 3,000 498 13,472 35,857 969,121 492 13,287 > 3,000 498 13,472 35,857 969,121 492 13,287 * NO x add on control is not required for this size range. Estimates shown are for information purposes only and are based on a hypothetical 90 percent reduction of NO x from the previous tier.

The EPA also evaluated the cost per ton of using selective catalytic reduction ( SCR). The NO x reduction using SCR is expected to be the same as NO x adsorber, i. e., about 90 percent, so the EPA used the NO x reduction shown in Table 3 to estimate the cost per ton with SCR. Based on information received from control technology vendors, EPA estimated SCR annual control costs of $ 36/ HP per engine. The resulting costs per ton of NO x removed for various stationary CI engine sizes are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Cost of Control per Ton of NO x Removed w/ SCR HP Range SCR Annual Control Cost per Engine ($/ yr) NOx Reduction per Engine Cost per ton NOx Removed ($/ ton)

Prime Emergency Prime Emergency 50 75 2,268 0.188 0.007 12,096 326,917 75 100 3,168 0.264 0.010 11,989 324,036 100 175 4,860 0.331 0.012 14,685 396,886 175 300 8,568 0.583 0.022 14,685 396,886 300 600 16,200 1.103 0.041 14,685 396,886 600 750 24,300 1.655 0.061 14,685 396,886 750 1,200 35,100 2.076 0.077 16,904 456,871 1,200 3,000 75,600 8.426 0.312 8,972 242,493 HP Range SCR Annual Control Cost per Engine ($/ yr) NOx Reduction per Engine Cost per ton NOx Removed ($/ ton)

Prime Emergency Prime Emergency 7 > 3,000 180,000 20.062 0.742 8,972 242,493 Finally, EPA evaluated the cost per ton of using oxidation catalyst. The technology can reduce PM emissions up to 30 percent from stationary CI engines. Based on information obtained from the Office of Transportation and Air Quality for oxidation catalysts, EPA developed oxidation control costs following the methodology discussed in the control cost memorandum referenced earlier in this memorandum. Using that methodology, EPA estimated an average annual cost of control for oxidation catalysts of $ 0.30/ HP per engine. Assuming oxidation catalysts will reduce PM emissions by 30 percent from stationary CI engines, EPA estimated the cost per ton of PM removed for various stationary CI engine sizes as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Cost of Control per Ton of PM Removed w/ Oxidation Catalyst HP Range Oxidation Catalyst Annual Control Cost per Engine ($/ yr) PM Reduction per Engine Cost per ton PM Removed ($/ ton)

Prime Emergenc y Prime Emergenc y 50 75 19 0.004 0.0002 4,536 122,594 75 100 26 0.009 0.0003 3,024 81,729 100 175 41 0.010 0.0004 4,124 111,449 175 300 71 0.012 0.0004 6,048 163,458 300 600 135 0.022 0.0008 6,048 163,458 600 750 203 0.033 0.0012 6,048 163,458 750 1,200 293 0.022 0.0008 13,148 355,344 1,200 3,000 630 0.048 0.0018 13,148 355,344 > 3,000 1,500 0.114 0.0042 13,148 355,344


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 47412]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15278-000]

Rye Sutton Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 6, 2022, Rye Sutton Hydroelectric, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
hydropower at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Sutton
Dam located on the Elk River in Braxton County, West Virginia. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Sutton Dam Hydroelectric Project would consist of the
following: (1) a new 40-foot-wide, 60-foot-long powerhouse to be
located downstream of the Corps dam along the southern bank; (2) a new
multiple-port intake structure against the upstream face of the dam;
(3) a new 12-foot-diameter, approximately 300-foot-long steel penstock;
(4) two turbine-generator units with a total generating capacity of 6
megawatts; (5) a new 100-foot-wide by 300-foot-long tailrace; (6) a new
substation with a step-up transformer; (7) a new 550-foot-long, 12-
kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 24,000
megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Michael Rooney, Rye Development, LLC, 100 S.
Olive Street, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Erik
Steimle, Rye Development, LLC, 100 S. Olive Street, West Palm Beach, FL
33401; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search.
Enter the docket number (P-15278) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 28, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16593 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P