[Federal Register: June 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 119)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29630-29632]
[DOCID:fr23jn09-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0553; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-199-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, and 747SR Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F,
and 747SR series airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time
general visual inspection for missing fasteners in certain stringer-to-
stringer clip joints at the station (STA) 760 through STA 940 frames,
and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This
proposed AD results from a report of broken and cracked frame shear
ties, cracks on the frame doubler and frame web, and missing fasteners
in the stringer (S)-10L stringer-to-stringer clip joint at the STA 820
frame. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing fasteners
in the stringer-to-stringer clip joints, which could result in shear
tie and skin cracks and rapid in-flight decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, 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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; 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-2009-0553;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-199-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 because of 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 we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that, during routine
maintenance, two operators found broken and cracked frame shear ties at
the station (STA) 820 frame between stringer (S)-10AL and S-11L. Also,
cracks were found on the frame doubler and frame web near S-11L.
Further inspection showed missing fasteners in the S-10L stringer-to-
stringer clip joint at the STA 820 frame. The cracks and missing
fasteners were found on airplanes that had accumulated 16,087 and
16,421 total flight cycles.
    Boeing analysis shows that the cracks were caused by increased load
on the shear ties because of the missing fasteners in the stringer-to-
stringer clip joint. Boeing investigation shows that similar cracking
could occur in the frames adjacent to the tension ties if the stringer
clip fasteners are not installed. Cracks in the shear ties, if not
detected and corrected, could result in skin cracks and rapid in-flight
decompression of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2751, dated
October 9, 2008. The service bulletin describes procedures for a one-
time general visual inspection for missing fasteners in the S-10, S-
10A, and S-11 stringer-to-stringer clip joints at the STA 760 through
STA 940 frames, detailed and surface high frequency eddy current
inspections to detect cracking of the adjacent frame and skin
structure, installation of missing fasteners, and repairs of the shear
ties, frame web, and/or skin. For airplanes on which the repair was
done, the service bulletin describes procedures for detailed
inspections to detect cracks of the repairs and the adjacent structure
within 10 inches of the repairs. The service bulletin also specifies a
detailed inspection of the repair and adjacent structure every 3,000
flight cycles.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 84 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                                Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                         Average                                                                      U.S.-
                 Action                    Work hours   labor rate     Parts                     Cost per product                   registered                     Fleet cost
                                                         per hour                                                                   airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection..............................            4          $80           $0  $320 per inspection cycle.......................           84  $26,880 per inspection cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance 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:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0553; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
199-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 7, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-200F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2751, dated October 9, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of broken and cracked frame
shear ties, cracks on the frame doubler and frame web, and missing
fasteners in the stringer (S)-10L stringer-to-stringer clip joint at
the station (STA) 820 frame. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct missing fasteners at the stringer-to-stringer clip joints,
which could result in shear tie and skin cracks and rapid in-flight
decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Inspection for Missing Fasteners

    (g) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD: Do a one-time general visual inspection for missing fasteners in
the left and right side S-10, S-10A, and S-11 stringer-to-stringer
clip joints at the STA 760 through 940 frames, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2751, dated October 9, 2008. If any fasteners are missing,
before further flight, do detailed and surface high frequency eddy
current inspections to detect cracking of the adjacent frame and
skin structure in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin. Install all missing fasteners before further
flight.
    (h) If any crack is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair any cracked
shear ties, frame web, and/or skin in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2751, dated October 9, 2008.
    (i) If any repair is done in accordance with paragraph (h) of
this AD, before 20,000 total flight cycles or within 3,000 flight
cycles from the repair installation, whichever occurs later: Do a
detailed inspection of the repair(s) and the adjacent structure
within 10 inches of the repair(s) for cracking. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles. If any crack is found during this inspection, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a principal
inspector, your local FSDO. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 15, 2009.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14677 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50847-50848]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD14-15-000]

Common Performance Metrics; Request for Information on Common
Performance Metrics for RTOs and ISOs and Utilities Outside RTO and ISO
Regions

    On August 26, 2014, Commission Staff issued a ``Common Metrics
Report,'' establishing 30 common metrics for independent system
operators (ISOs), regional transmission organizations (RTOs), and
utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions. In that report, Commission Staff
indicated that upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for additional data collection, a notice would be issued
requesting that the ISOs, RTOs, and participating utilities in non-ISO/
RTO regions provide performance

information on the common metrics on a schedule to be specified in the
notice.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Common Metrics Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-15-
000, at 4 (Aug. 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the OMB-approved data collection \2\ and past
practice regarding this effort, ISOs, RTOs, and utilities in non-ISO/
RTO regions are encouraged to submit information responsive to the 30
common metrics listed in the August 2014 report. Information submitted
should cover the 2010-2014 period, and should be submitted by October
30, 2015.\3\ Commission staff plans to contact representatives of the
ISOs, RTOs, and utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions that have previously
participated in this effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On August 6, 2015, OMB approved a request for reinstatement
and revision of information collection FERC-922, ``Performance
Metrics for ISOs, RTOs and Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs'' (OMB
Control No. 1902-0262).
    \3\ Information should be submitted in docket no. AD14-15-000.
Submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with the
submission guidelines described at: http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/submission-guide.asp. Submissions must be in an acceptable
file format as described at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary/accept-file-formats.asp. The numeric values corresponding
to all charts and tables containing metrics must be submitted in an
accompanying file, in one of the following formats: Microsoft Office
2003/2007/2010: Excel (.xls or .xlsx), or ASCII Comma Separated
Value (.csv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information, please contact: Eric Krall, Office of
Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 17, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20743 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Selection of Operating Parameters for the Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Final Rule FROM: Tanya Ali Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group On December 19, 2002, EPA proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE) ( 67 FR 77830). In the proposed rule, EPA specified that sources had to meet certain operating limitations, in addition to meeting emission limitations. The EPA received several comments on the proposed rule from industry. In general, industry was opposed to the type and level of operating limitations proposed by EPA. The purpose of this memorandum is to document information supporting EPA's selection of operating parameters and operating limitations for the stationary RICE final rule.

Operating Limitations Proposed Operating Limitations For existing, new, and reconstructed 4 stroke rich burn ( 4SRB) engines complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more using non selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR), EPA specified that sources had to:

( 1) maintain their catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test;

( 2) maintain their catalyst so that the temperature rise across the catalyst is no more than 5 percent different from the temperature rise across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test; and 2 ( 3) maintain the temperature of their stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 750

F and less than or equal to 1,250

F.

For new and reconstructed 2 stroke lean burn ( 2SLB) stationary RICE, new and reconstructed 4 stroke lean burn ( 4SLB) stationary RICE, and new and reconstructed compression ignition ( CI) stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce carbon monoxide ( CO) emissions using an oxidation catalyst, EPA specified that sources had to:

( 1) maintain their catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test; and ( 2) maintain the temperature of their stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 500

F and less than or equal to 1,250

F.

For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, EPA specified that sources had to:

( 1) maintain an operating load greater than or equal to 95 percent of the operating load established during the initial performance test; or ( 2) maintain a fuel flow rate greater than or equal to 95 percent of the fuel flow rate established during the initial performance test; and ( 3) comply with any additional operating limitations approved by the Administrator.

During the public comment period, EPA received several different comments from industry regarding the proposed operating parameters and operating limitations. The following sections summarize the comments received on the proposed operating parameters and operating limitations and document EPA's selection of operating parameters and operating limitations for the final rule.

Catalyst Pressure Drop Several commenters expressed that the pressure drop requirement should be removed. In general, commenters were of the opinion that although a significant change in pressure drop across the catalyst may provide an indication that the catalyst has become fouled, EPA has not provided any evidence to suggest that an increase in 2 inches of water leads to the catalyst performance being impacted. In fact, 3 commenters stated that industry data show that the pressure drop across the catalyst can increase by more than 2 inches of water without impacting the catalyst performance. In addition, commenters also stated that the pressure drop is not something that vendors treat as a continuous operating parameter requirement, but is a maintenance requirement on some engines.

Catalyst vendors have indicated to EPA that the pressure drop across the catalyst may be a good parameter to indicate catalyst performance and that an increase in pressure drop is an indication of poor catalyst performance ( Document ID Nos. OAR 2002 0059 0189 and 0190 and A 95 35 II E 103 and 104). The pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the catalyst is damaged or fouled. If the catalyst is damaged or becomes fouled, the catalyst performance would decrease. For these reasons, EPA felt it was appropriate to include a requirement to monitor the pressure drop as it can serve as a surrogate of catalyst performance and can provide an indication of decreasing catalyst efficiency. The EPA feels that this requirement is appropriate for the final rule.

The EPA determined based on information from catalyst vendors that an operating limitation of 2 inches of water was appropriate as such a pressure drop, as compared to the pressure drop measured during the initial performance test, might indicate that the catalyst has been damaged or fouled. Miractech Corporation stated in their catalyst manual for oxidation catalyst and NSCR that if the pressure drop changes by more than 2 inches of water column, the catalyst should be inspected for damage or fouling ( Document ID Nos. OAR 2002 0059 0482 and A 95 35 II D 64). For this reason, EPA feels it is on firm ground establishing such an operating limitation for sources using NSCR or oxidation catalyst in the final rule. It should be noted that periods when the pressure drop strays from the established ranges are not considered violations. These periods are considered deviations, which might result in further examination by the enforcing agency.

As discussed above, EPA feels it is appropriate to maintain the requirement that the pressure drop across the catalyst not change by more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test as an operating limitation in the final rule for sources using NSCR or oxidation catalyst. However, the EPA has reevaluated its position regarding requiring sources to monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst on a continuous basis and is no longer requiring sources to install a continuous parameter monitoring system to monitor this parameter continuously. The pressure drop across the catalyst is not likely to change within short periods of time, but is a parameter the owner or operator might see changing over a longer period of time, not within hours or days. This is consistent with comments that stated that vendors do not treat pressure differential as a continuous operating parameter requirement. Rather it is presented as a maintenance requirement for catalysts on some engines. For this reason, EPA feels it is appropriate to require 4 sources that must comply with the pressure drop requirement to measure this parameter monthly in the final rule. The EPA does not expect the pressure drop across the catalyst to change significantly more frequently than monthly.

It should be noted that in the final rule, the requirement to measure the pressure drop across the catalyst monthly applies to sources complying with any emission limitation requirement of the final rule using NSCR or oxidation catalyst. Sources that comply with any of the emission limitations that do not use NSCR or oxidation catalyst do not have to measure the pressure drop across the catalyst monthly, but must instead petition the Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no operating limitations. These sources must measure, maintain, and monitor the operating parameters that were approved by the Administrator, if any.

Catalyst Temperature Rise Several commenters stated that the temperature rise requirement should be removed. In general, commenters stated that a wide range of temperature differentials may be experienced across NSCR catalysts. A NSCR catalyst is more likely to show a positive temperature change across the catalyst, however, very low, or even negative, temperature changes are possible while the catalyst is functioning normally. Also, commenters stated that EPA has not provided any data to support the proposed operating limitation of 5 percent temperature rise, as compared to the temperature rise measured during the initial performance test. One commenter questioned why a higher temperature differential should not be allowed. As an example, the commenter stated that what if the temperature differential is 10 percent, and asked would this not represent a higher degree of oxidation.

Based on the comments received, EPA agrees with the commenters that such a requirement would be inappropriate and most likely would not provide an accurate representation of how the catalyst is performing. Therefore, EPA has not included the requirement to maintain the catalyst such that the temperature rise across the catalyst stays within 5 percent of the temperature rise measured during the initial performance test in the final rule. The EPA feels that maintaining the catalyst inlet temperature continuously and measuring the pressure drop across the catalyst monthly is sufficient to ensure compliance in between periodic stack testing.

Catalyst Inlet Temperature Several commenters contended that the temperature ranges at the catalyst inlet should be revised. Commenters supported an operating range of 450

F 1,350

F for lean burn engines. Emissions data from EPA's testing at Colorado State University demonstrate that the proposed emission limitations were achieved when the catalyst inlet temperature was as low as 450

F. In addition, information in EPA's docket 5 suggests that 1,350

F should be allowed as the upper limit for catalyst inlet temperature operating limitations.

The EPA required the catalyst inlet temperature to be maintained to ensure proper operation of the oxidation catalyst. The EPA stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that, in general, the oxidation catalyst performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature decreases. Also, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high, oxidation catalyst performance could be affected. Finally, the oxidation catalyst inlet temperature cannot be too low, or the reduction of HAP emissions may be compromised. For these reasons, EPA proposed that sources complying with the CO reduction requirement using an oxidation catalyst maintain the catalyst inlet temperature within 500 1,250

F.

The EPA agrees that the lower end of the operating limitation temperature range should start at 450

F for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines using oxidation catalyst. The level of the standard for 2SLB engines in the final rule is 58 percent CO reduction. Similar CO reduction was observed at CSU for 2SLB engines where the exhaust temperature was 450

F. For this reason, the EPA has specified in the final rule that the lower end of the operating limitation is 450

F. Furthermore, EPA feels that the oxidation catalyst will perform adequately at a temperature of 1,350

F. This was discussed in the memorandum entitled " Control Technologies for Stationary RICE" available from EPA's Edocket Website as Document ID Number OAR 2002 0059 0064 ( A 95 35 II B 41). Comments received also stated that Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc. includes 1,350

F in their limited warranty statements for oxidation catalysts. For these reasons, EPA agrees with the commenters and feels that the higher end of the operating limitation temperature range should end at 1,350

F. The EPA has written the temperature range requirement for catalyst inlet temperatures to be between 450

F and 1,350

F in the final rule for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines using oxidation catalyst. For 4SRB engines, the temperature range required for catalyst inlet temperatures is the same as proposed, i. e., the catalyst inlet temperature must be between 750

F and 1,250

F.

Note that in the final rule, the requirement to maintain the catalyst inlet temperature applies to sources complying with any emission limitation requirement using NSCR or oxidation catalyst. Sources that comply with any of the emission limitations that do not use NSCR or oxidation catalyst do not have to maintain the catalyst inlet temperature, but must instead petition the Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no operating limitations.

Load/ Fuel Flow Several commenters stated that the operating load and fuel flow rate operating limitations should be removed. Certain commenters expressed that the requirement to 6 maintain an operating load or fuel flow rate may under many circumstances be impractical. This would be particularly problematic for stationary engines used in variable load applications and could potentially limit engine operation.

The EPA understands that maintaining the operating load or fuel flow rate within 95 percent of the operating load or fuel flow rate established during the initial performance test may be impractical for many engines, especially those used in load following applications such as engines operating on pipelines which must respond to unpredictable pipeline conditions. Therefore, the EPA has not included the requirement to maintain load or fuel flow rate in the final rule. The EPA feels that maintaining the catalyst inlet temperature continuously and measuring the pressure drop across the catalyst monthly is sufficient to ensure compliance in between periodic stack testing for sources complying with requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust using NSCR or oxidation catalyst.

Sources that comply with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust that do not use NSCR or oxidation catalyst must petition the Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no operating limitations.

Deviations Periods when operating parameters stray from the operating limitations are considered deviations. For sources that must measure the pressure drop monthly, periods when the pressure drop across the catalyst is greater than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test are considered deviations. For sources that must maintain the temperature of their stationary RICE exhaust, periods when the catalyst inlet temperature is outside of the acceptable range as defined in the final rule are considered deviations.

Deviations from operating limitations must be reported in the semiannual compliance report. However, a deviation is not a direct violation of the stationary RICE final rule, but requires that the owners and operators take action to assure that the catalyst system is still functional. The owner and operator would have to explain the cause( s) of deviation and determine whether or not the deviation is an indication of declining catalyst performance in their semiannual compliance report. Depending on the cause( s) of the deviation, owners and operators may have to wash, service, or replace the catalyst. Deviations may result in the enforcing agency requiring the owner or operator to conduct a performance test.

Conclusion In the final rule, EPA has allowed sources the flexibility of complying with either 7 emission limitation requirement ( percent reduction or concentration limit), regardless of which control technique is applied. Sources that use an oxidation catalyst are not limited to meeting the requirement to reduce CO emissions, but have the option to comply with either the CO percent reduction requirement or with the formaldehyde concentration limit. Similarly, 4SRB engines that use NSCR are not limited to meeting the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions, but have the option to comply with either the formaldehyde percent reduction requirement or with the formaldehyde concentration limit. Sources that do not use oxidation catalyst or NSCR, may also choose to comply with either the percent reduction requirement or with the formaldehyde concentration limit.

As previously noted in this memorandum, sources that comply with any emission limitation requirement and use NSCR or oxidation catalyst, must also comply with operating limitations that apply to that engine subcategory. Sources that comply with any emission limitation requirement that do not use NSCR or oxidation catalyst do not have to comply with the operating limitations specified in the final rule, but must instead petition the Administrator for approval of operating parameters and limitations that the source feels will be indicators of performance and emission levels. Sources also have the option of petitioning the Administrator for approval of no operating limitations. The following table shows the operating limitations of the final rule.

Table 1. Operating Limitations for the Final Rule Subcategory Operating Limitations 4SRB stationary RICE complying the with requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and using NSCR;

and 4SRB stationary RICE complying with requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and using NSCR. Maintain your catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst that was measured during the initial performance test;

and maintain the temperature of your stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 750

F and less than or equal to 1,250

F. Subcategory Operating Limitations 8 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst;

and 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and using an oxidation catalyst. Maintain your catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst that was measured during the initial performance test;

and maintain the temperature of your stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 450

F and less than or equal to 1,350

F.

4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and not using NSCR;

and 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and not using an oxidation catalyst;

and Stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and not using NSCR or an oxidation catalyst. Comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 47790]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2669-089]

Bear Swamp Power Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for license for the Bear Swamp Project,
located on the Deerfield River, in Berkshire and Franklin Counties,
Massachusetts, and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA)
for the project.
    The FEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the FEA via the internet through the Commission's
Home Page (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. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Amy Chang at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 31, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17187 Filed 8-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 59560]
[DOCID:fr18no09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-C-0543]

Sauflon Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that
Sauflon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has filed a petition proposing that the
color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of
disodium 1-amino-4-[[4-[(2-bromo-1-oxoallyl)amino]-2-
sulfonatophenyl]amino]-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxoanthracene-2-sulfonate
(CAS Reg. No. 70209-99-3) as a color additive in contact lenses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raphael A. Davy, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (sec. 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), notice is given that a
color additive petition (CAP 8C0287) has been filed by Sauflon
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 49-53 York St., Twickenham, Middlesex, TW1 3LP,
United Kingdom. The petition proposes to amend the color additive
regulations in 21 CFR part 73, subpart D, Medical Devices to provide
for the safe use of disodium 1-amino-4-[[4-[(2-bromo-1-oxoallyl)amino]-
2-sulfonatophenyl]amino]-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxoanthracene-2-sulfonate
(CAS Reg. No. 70209-99-3) as a color additive in contact lenses.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(l) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: November 10, 2009.
Laura M. Tarantino,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. E9-27629 Filed 11-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35301]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15900]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83676; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a New NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E and To List and Trade Shares of the
Royce Pennsylvania ETF, Royce Premier ETF, and Royce Total Return ETF
Under Proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900-E

July 20, 2018.
    On January 8, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
adopt new NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E to permit it to list and trade Managed
Portfolio Shares. The Exchange also proposed to list and trade shares
of Royce Pennsylvania ETF, Royce Premier ETF, and Royce Total Return
ETF under proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on January 26, 2018.\3\
On March 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed
rule change.\6\ On April 26, 2018, the Commission instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\8\ Since
then, the Commission has received two additional comments on the
proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82549 (January 19,
2018), 83 FR 3846.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82824, 83 FR 10934
(March 13, 2018). The Commission designated April 26, 2018, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ See letters from: (1) Terence W. Norman, Founder, Blue
Tractor Group, LLC, dated February 6, 2018; (2) Simon P. Goulet, Co-
Founder, Blue Tractor Group, LLC, dated February 13, 2018; (3) Todd
J. Broms, Chief Executive Officer, Broms & Company LLC, dated
February 16, 2018; (4) Kevin S. Haeberle, Associate Professor of
Law, William & Mary Law School, dated February 16, 2018; and (5)
Gary L. Gastineau, President, ETF Consultants.com, Inc., dated March
6, 2018. The comment letters are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-04/nysearca201804.htm.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83120, 83 FR 19371
(May 2, 2018).
    \9\ See letters from: (1) Terence W. Norman, Founder, Blue
Tractor Group, LLC, dated May 8, 2018 and (2) Kevin S. Haeberle,
Associate Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School, dated June 6,
2018. The comment letters are available on the Commission's website
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-04/nysearca201804.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \10\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission, however, may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
January 26, 2018.\11\ July 25, 2018, is 180 days from that date, and
September 23, 2018, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change and the issues raised in the comment letters that have been
submitted in connection therewith. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ designates September 23,
2018, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15900 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14222-14223]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0037]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Mobileye,
Inc., Application for an Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant Mobileye, Inc.'s (Mobileye) exemption
application to enable motor carriers to utilize its camera-based
collision avoidance systems (CAS) mounted within the swept area of the
windshield wipers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) currently require antennas, transponders, and similar devices
to be located outside the area swept by the windshield wipers. The
Mobileye CAS is able to warn drivers of potential hazards by detecting
other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on the road, and lane markings
and traffic signs. The Agency believes the use of the CAS promotes
improved safety performance and that the placement of the system in the
swept area of the windshield wipers will not obstruct drivers' view of
the roadway and potential hazards. The Agency has concluded that the
limited 2-year exemption will achieve a level of safety equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety provided by the rule restricting
the placement of devices in the windshield area.

DATES: This exemption is effective March 18, 2015 and ending March 20,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Mobileye's Application for Exemption

    Mobileye applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow
the installation of a CAS system on several thousand commercial motor
vehicles. A copy of the application is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.60(e)(1) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the
driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield.
Antennas, transponders and similar devices must not be mounted more
than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield. These
devices must be located outside the area swept by the windshield wipers
and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and
signals.
    In its application, Mobileye stated:

    Mobileye is making this request because we are coordinating
device development and installation of a camera based collision
avoidance system in up to several hundred thousand commercial motor
vehicles. The camera based sensor equipment to be installed is going
to be located at either the bottom or top of the windshield, but
will be in the swept area of the windshield wipers because the
safety equipment must have a clear forward facing view of the road.
    This system is the same technology that Mobileye provides to
carmakers such as Ford, GM, Honda and many others. These companies
have deployed over two million vehicles with this technology.
Collision avoidance systems, in particular those that have the main
features of Mobileye, have been noted by NHTSA, NTSB and FMCSA as
key safety equipment in both cars and trucks. Recently, the NTSB
cited this type of collision avoidance system as part of its top ten
``most wanted'' advocacy priorities. FMCSA itself has recommended
Forward Collision Warning and Lane Departure Warning, just two of
Mobileye features. Mobileye seeks exemption for the aftermarket
(field retrofitable) version of this technology.
    With the exemption, Mobileye will be able to install the camera
based collision avoidance system in a location which will offer the
best opportunity to optimize the data and evaluate the benefits of
such a system as well as maximize safety benefits.

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on July 2, 2014, and asked for public comment (79 FR 37841).

Comments

    In response to its notice requesting public comment, the Agency
received one comment from the American Trucking Associations (ATA). The
ATA stated that it ``strongly supports'' granting the exemption to
allow use of the Mobileye CAS in commercial motor vehicles. The ATA
noted that ``Safety technology companies have been working with many
ATA members to help reduce carrier crash involvement rates using their
technologies. As a result, many of our member companies have seen
significant decreases in the number of at-fault collisions and near
misses.''

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the Mobileye exemption application. The
Agency believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow
placement of the Mobileye CAS system sensor in the upper or lower
portion of the windshield, within the swept area of the windshield
wipers, will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption
because (1) based on the technical information available, there is no
indication that the CAS sensor would obstruct drivers' views of the
roadway, highway signs and surrounding traffic; (2) generally,

trucks and buses have an elevated seating position that greatly
improves the forward visual field of the driver, and any impairment of
available sight lines would be minimal; and (3) the location within the
top or bottom four inches of the area swept by the windshield wiper and
out of the driver's normal sightline will be reasonable and enforceable
at roadside. In addition, the Agency believes that the use of the
Mobileye CAS by fleets is likely to improve the overall level of safety
to the motoring public.
    This action is consistent with previous Agency actions permitting
the similar placement of video event recorders on CMVs, within the
swept area of the windshield wipers. FMCSA has granted temporary
exemptions to Greyhound Lines, Inc. and to DriveCam, Inc. regarding the
use of the video event recorders to increase safety through (1)
identification and remediation of risky driving behaviors such as
distracted driving and drowsiness, (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger
behavior on CMVs in passenger service, and (3) enhanced collision
review and analysis. Both of these exemptions have been renewed for two
additional 2-year periods, as FMCSA is not aware of any evidence
showing that the installation of the devices in the upper area of the
windshield has resulted in any degradation in safety. The Agency has
not received any feedback from interested parties suggesting that use
of safety devices/technology in the windshield area have had an adverse
impact on safety.
    This action is also consistent with previous Agency actions
permitting the similar placement of lane departure warning system
sensors on CMVs, within the swept area of the windshield wipers. FMCSA
initially granted temporary exemptions to Con-way Freight, TK Holdings,
Inc., and Iteris, Inc. regarding the use of lane departure warning
systems to increase safety by alerting drivers who unintentionally
drift out of their lane of travel. The Agency renewed the exemptions
for an additional 2-year period, and while the original exemptions
granted relief to motor carriers using only the Takata and Iteris lane
departure warning systems, the Agency determined--given that it has not
been made aware of any reduction in the level of safety associated with
the use of those systems--that it was appropriate to extend the scope
of the exemption to encompass motor carriers using any lane departure
warning system, provided that such sensors (1) are the same size or
smaller than the Takata and Iteris (now Bendix) sensors, and (2)
mounted in the windshield in accordance with the provisions of the
original exemption.
    FMCSA continues to believe that the potential safety gains from the
use of video event recorders and lane departure waning systems to
improve driver behavior and performance will improve the overall level
of safety to the motoring public. The Agency believes the same is true
regarding the use of the Mobileye CAS.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a two-year period,
beginning March 18, 2015 and ending March 20, 2017. During the
temporary exemption period, motor carriers using the Mobileye CAS must
ensure that the sensor is mounted not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below
the upper edge, or above the lower edge, of the area swept by the
windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals. The exemption will be valid for two years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that motor carriers using the Mobileye CAS are not achieving the
requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA.
The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being
compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to
revoke the exemption.

Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent
with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the
exemption.

    Issued on: March 12, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06180 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

July 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Summary of SmartWay Port Dray 2014 Data

FROM:  L. Steele, EPA-OTAQ, Assessment and Standards Division

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memorandum presents an excerpt of data acquired by EPA’s SmartWay
team.  The report was run for the 2014 data year for Dray Class 8b
tractors.

  REF _Ref456788146 \h  Table 1  presents data reported for the 1,740
tractors that were identified as participating in a now discontinued
SmartWay port dray program.  The SmartWay database includes other data
for drayage tractors that may engage in port dray activity, but are not
designated with a port identifier in the database.  In analyzing these
data, some observations regarding duty cycles can be made.  For example,
the weighted average of reported annual idle hours is calculated to be
762 hours for the vehicles listed in this table.  Also, the weighted
average of reported percent highway operation is calculated to be 59
percent for the vehicles listed in this table.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1 : Sample of Port Dray SmartWay 2014
Data


Study Title PRIVATE

Publicly Releasable Summary of the Petition

for Establishment of a Tolerance for Novaluron in or on

Tomato, Tomato Paste, and Sugarcane

EPA Registration Action References

IR-4 Tolerance Petition

PP# 7E7199

Authors

Robert Everich, Ph.D

Bert Volger, Ph.D.

Document Date

March 19, 2007

Prepared by

Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc.

4515 Falls of Neuse Road,

Raleigh, NC 27609

Submitted by

IR-4 Project Headquarters

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

500 College Road East, Suite 201W

Princeton, NJ 08540

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP #7E7199

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP # 7E7199) from IR-4, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540,  proposing, pursuant
to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.598 by establishing a tolerance for
residues of novaluron
(1-[3-chloro-4-(1,1,2-trifluoro-2-trifluoromethoxyethoxy)phenyl]-3-[2,6-
difluorobenzoyl]urea) in or on tomato at 0.40 parts per million (ppm);
tomato, paste at 0.80 ppm; and in or on sugarcane, cane at 0.50 ppm.
Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., 4515 Falls of Neuse Road,
Raleigh, NC 27609, is the manufacturer and basic registrant of
novaluron. Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc., prepared and
summarized the following information in support of the pesticide
petition for novaluron. EPA has determined that the petition contains
data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408(d)(2) of the FFDCA. However, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A.	Residue Chemistry

     	1.   	Plant Metabolism

	The qualitative nature of the residue of novaluron in plants is
adequately understood based on acceptable apple, cabbage, cotton, and
potato metabolism studies. These plant metabolism studies have
demonstrated that novaluron does not metabolize and is non-systemic
(does not translocate within the plant). The results observed in the
plant and livestock metabolism studies show similar metabolic pathways.
The residue of concern, which should be regulated, is the parent
compound, novaluron, only.

		2.	Analytical Method

	An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography/electron capture
detector (GC/ECD), is available for enforcing tolerances of novaluron
residues in or on tomatoes, sugarcane and its processed commodities, as
published in the Federal Register of April 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number
65; FRL-7756-8). Based on the sample size and dilution factors, the
limit of quantitation in matrix was equal to the lowest concentration
level for the validation analyses.  The method verification trial
supports a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm in the different
tomato and sugarcane matrices. The limit of quantitation (LOQ = 0.05
ppm) was taken as the lowest level validated by this method.

		3. 	Magnitude of Residues

	A total of 19 residue trials were conducted in tomatoes (including 4
greenhouse trials) during the 2004 season covering the major growing
areas in the NAFTA Regions. Novaluron was applied three times, following
a 6 to 9 day spray interval, using a maximum application rate of 0.086
lb active ingredient per acre (total of 0.254 lb a.i./A per season).
Whole fruit samples were harvested 1 to 2 days after the last
application. The average novaluron residues from these samples ranged
from less than 0.05 ppm (LOQ) to 0.365 ppm. The mean residue from all
treated whole fruit tomato trials was 0.107 ppm. The mean residue from
treated small-fruited variety trials was 0.255 ppm. Overall, the average
residues from field trials were similar to those from greenhouse trials,
with the exception of one greenhouse trial (average 0.365 ppm). Two
trials were conducted for the processing of whole tomatoes into tomato
puree and paste. Processed puree samples had significantly lower
residues than unprocessed samples, indicating that no concentration of
residues occurs. However, treated samples that were processed into
tomato paste resulted in higher residues than whole fruit tomatoes with
a maximum concentration factor of 1.9.

	Concerning sugarcane, eight field residue trials were conducted
covering EPA Regions III (3 trials), IV (3 trials), VI (1 trial), and
XIII (1 trials) during the 2004 season. These locations are
representative of the major sugarcane production areas of the United
States. The application regime consisted of five applications at 8 to
12-day intervals, using a maximum of 0.078 lb active ingredient per acre
(total of 0.39 lb ai/A), and a pre-harvest interval of 10 to 14 days.
One trial site was treated with 2X of the intended application rate
(0.157 lb ai/A), and sugarcane samples were collected for processing
into fractions of molasses and refined sugar. The treated sugarcane
samples were found to have average novaluron residues ranging from less
than 0.05 ppm to 0.293 ppm. There were no residues above the LOQ (0.05
ppm) in sugarcane molasses or refined sugar prepared from sugarcane
treated at the 1X or the 2X rate and harvested at 14 days after last
application.

B.	 Toxicological Profile

	1.   	Acute Toxicity

In an acute oral toxicity study in rats, novaluron had an LD50 >5,000
mg/kg.  A dermal toxicity study in rats resulted in an LD50 greater than
2,000 mg/kg.  The LC50 for acute inhalation in rats was greater than
5.15 mg/l.  In rabbits, novaluron is not a skin irritant, but it is a
mild eye irritant.  Novaluron is not a sensitizer in guinea pigs.

		2.	  Genotoxicity

The mutagenic potential of Novaluron was investigated in several in vivo
and in vitro studies.  Results in two Ames assays, an in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay, an in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay,
an in vitro cell mutation assay, and an in vitro human lymphocyte
clastogenicity test were negative.  Novaluron is therefore considered to
have no potential to induce mutagenicity.

		3.     Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity

	i.   A two generation rat reproduction study was conducted with dose
levels of 1,000, 4,000, and 12,000 ppm (74.2, 297.5, 894.9 mg/kg/day,
and 84, 336.7, 1,009.8 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).
Maternal and offspring toxicity was evidenced by increased absolute and
relative spleen weights, whereas reproductive toxicity was observed only
in males at 297.5 mg/kg/day (LOAEL) based on decreased epididymal sperm
counts and increased age at preputial separation in the F1 generation.
The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) in males was 1,000 ppm
(74.2 mg/kg/day) and in females it was $12,000 ppm (1,009.8 mg/kg/day).

	ii.    Teratology studies were conducted in the rat and rabbit.  No
treatment-related mortalities were observed in either study.  No effect
on survival, development or growth of fetuses was noted in either
species in either study.  No maternal or developmental toxicity was
observed up to and including the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day (NOAEL).
These two studies demonstrate that novaluron was not teratogenic in
either rats or rabbits.

		4.	Subchronic Toxicity

Rats, mice and dogs all show the same toxicologic response.  Generally,
 novaluron induces small increases in methemoglobin; red cells are
sequestered; and, compensatory hematopoiesis occurs.  The severity of
these changes is well within the physiological capacity of the animals
and is judged   not adverse.

Rats treated topically with novaluron in a 28-day study at 0, 75, 400
and 1,000 mg/kg/day did not show signs of systemic toxicity.  Small
treatment-related increases in methemoglobin were seen in both sexes at
1,000 mg/kg/day and in females at 400 mg/kg/day.  The highest
methemoglobin value seen in females was 1.28% compared with 0.86% in
controls.  Organ weights, macroscopic and microscopic examination of
organs and tissues did not reveal any treatment-related changes.

Two 13-week rat studies were conducted.  In one study, doses were
administered at 50, 100, 200, 400 ppm (3.52, 6.93, 13.83, 27.77
mg/kg/day and 4.38, 8.64, 17.54 and 34.39 mg/kg/day for males and
females, respectively). The LOAELs from the combined results were 27.77
mg/kg/day in males based on increased occurrence of extramedullary
hematopoiesis and hemosiderosis in spleen; and 8.64 mg/kg/day in females
based on reduction in hemoglobin, hematocrit and RBC count; increased
occurrence of extramedullary hematopoiesis and hemosiderosis in spleen
and liver.  The NOAEL was determined to be 4.38 mg/kg/day.

A 13-week mouse study was conducted with dose levels of 30, 100, 1,000,
10,000 ppm (4.2, 12.8, 135.9, 1,391.9 and 4.7, 15.2, 135.6, 1,493.1
mg/kg/day, for males and females, respectively).  The NOAEL was
determined to be 100 ppm (12.8 and 15.2 mg/kg/day, male and females,
respectively).  The LOAEL was 1,000 ppm (135.9 and 135.6 mg/kg/day,
males and females, respectively) based on increased body weight gain,
low erythrocyte counts, and secondary splenic changes.  There were no
clinical treatment-related signs noted.

Two 13-week dog studies were conducted.   One study resulted in an NOAEL
of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day based on low erythrocyte
counts and secondary splenic and liver changes.  No clinical
treatment-related signs were noted.  Another study, was conducted using
only one dose level of 10 mg/kg/day.  There were no clinical or
histopathological treatment-related signs and the NOEL was determined to
be 10 mg/kg/day.

		5.	Chronic Toxicity

	i.    Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity was evaluated in the rat, mouse
and dog.  The rat chronic toxicity and oncogenicity was conducted with
dose levels of 25, 700, 20,000 ppm (1.1, 30.6, 884.2 and 1.4, 39.5,
1,113.5 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).  The LOAEL in
male and female rats was 30.6 and 39.5 mg/kg/day, respectively, based on
evidence of erythrocyte damage and turnover resulting in a regenerative
anemia in both sexes. The corresponding NOAEL was 25 ppm (1.1 and 1.4
mg/kg/day for male and female rats, respectively). There was no evidence
of carcinogenicity in this study.  A mouse chronic toxicity study was
conducted with dose levels of 30, 450, 7,000 ppm (3.6, 53.4, 800.0 and
4.3, 63.3, 913.4 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).  The
LOAEL in male and female mice was 53.4 and 63.3 mg/kg/day, respectively,
based on erythrocyte turnover due to hemoglobin oxidation and resulting
in a compensated anemia. The corresponding NOAEL was 30 ppm (3.6 and 4.3
mg/kg/day for male and female mice, respectively). There was also no
evidence of carcinogenicity in this study.  Chronic toxicity was
investigated in dogs using dose levels of 10, 100, 1,000 mg/kg/day.  The
NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day was based on methemoglobin.

		ii.  	The chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.011 mg/kg/day has been
established on the basis of the chronic carcinogenicity study in rats.
An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was applied to the NOAEL of 1.1
mg/kg/day for male rats deriving to the cRfD.

 		iii. 	 In accordance with the EPA Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment (July 1999), novaluron is classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans due to results of oncogenicity studies that show
no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.

		6.	Animal Metabolism

Metabolism studies in rats and goats were conducted with the parent
material labeled in both the difluorophenyl and chlorophenyl moieties.

Rats absorb little novaluron when it is administered orally.  More than
90% of the dietary administered [chlorophenyl 14C(U)] novaluron is
recovered in the feces.  When the diflurophenyl ring of the molecule is
labeled, the recovered 14C activity in the feces is lower but still
above 75%.  The difference is thought to reflect intestinal metabolism
by microbial flora and the higher absorption of the diflurophenyl
metabolites.

The parent molecule as well as its degradates are absorbed from the
gastrointestinal tract.  All parent material is metabolized either upon
initial entry into the systemic circulation or, if sequestered to the
fat, upon its depuration back to the systemic circulation.  There is no
intact novaluron found in the urine. Novaluron=s high octanol-water
partition coefficient is responsible for its preferential movement to
fat.  The half-life in fat calculated from the rat metabolism study is
approximately 55 hours.

Two groups of metabolites are formed after oral administration of
novaluron.  One group is typified by the aniline metabolite
3-chloro-4-(1,1,2-trifluoro-2-trifluoromethoxyethoxy) aniline, referred
to as 3-TFA.  The other group of metabolites is typified by
2,6-difluorobenzoic acid is from the diflurophenyl moiety of the
molecule.  Nearly all the metabolites are formed at a level of 1% or
less of the applied dose.  They are rapidly excreted.

The metabolism in goats mimics that seen in rats.

	7.     Metabolite Toxicology

Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc., has determined that there are no
metabolites of toxicological concern and therefore, no metabolites need
to be included in the tolerance expression and require regulation. For
drinking water assessment the soil degradates, chlorophenyl urea and
chloroaniline will be included besides the parent, novaluron.

 		8.	Endocrine Disruption

No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine
effects of novaluron have been conducted.  However, inspection of
in-life data from toxicology studies does not indicate that novaluron is
an endocrine disruptor.  Specifically, endocrine organ weights (e.g.,
thyroid, testes, ovaries, pituitary from the two-generation study) were
not adversely affected by novaluron.  Milestones of sexual development
were not affected by novaluron; and, reproduction was not adversely
affected.  Based on these observations, there is no evidence to suggest
that novaluron has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C.   Aggregate Exposure

	1.	Dietary Exposure

Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.598) for the residues of
novaluron, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Apple,
wet pomace at 8.0; cattle, fat at 11 ppm; cattle, kidney at 1.0 ppm;
cattle, liver at 1.0 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.60 ppm; cattle, meat
byproducts, except liver and kidney at 0.60 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts
at 30 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.60 ppm; eggs at 0.05 ppm; fruit,
pome, group 11 at 2.0 ppm; goat, fat at 11 ppm; goat, kidney at 1.0 ppm;
goat, liver at 1.0 ppm; goat, meat at 0.60 ppm; goat, meat byproducts
except liver and kidney at 0.60 ppm; hog, fat at 0.05 ppm; hog, meat at
0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 11 ppm; horse,
kidney at 1.0 ppm; horse, liver at 1.0 ppm; horse, meat at 0.60 ppm;
horse, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney at 0.60 ppm; milk at 1.0
ppm; milk, fat at 20 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.40 ppm; poultry, meat at
0.03 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.04 ppm; sheep, fat at 11 ppm;
sheep, kidney at 1.0 ppm; sheep, liver at 1.0 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.60
ppm; sheep, meat byproducts, except liver and kidney at 0.60 ppm, and
vegetables, tuberous and corn, subgroup 1C at 0.05 ppm, as recently
published in the Federal Register of April 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number
65; FRL-7756-8).  In addition to the existing tolerances, this Notice of
Filing includes exposure assessments for potential residues of novaluron
in or on tomatoes, tomato paste, and sugarcane.

		i. 	Food

		a.   Acute Dietary Exposure. No toxicological endpoint attributable to
a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies,
including the rat and rabbit developmental studies.  Therefore, the
acute aggregate risk is negligible.

b.     Chronic Dietary Exposure.  A chronic dietary risk assessment was
conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) software
with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM Version 2.16),
which incorporates consumption data derived from the 1994 - 1998 USDA
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). The assessment
included all uses (existing and proposed), assuming provided percent
crop treated estimates at market maturity (apples = 30%, pears = 50%,
head and stem Brassica = 30%, tuberous and corm vegetables = 18%, cotton
= 12%, tomatoes = 15% and sugarcane =28%), average field residues,
anticipated residues for meat and milk products with the exception for
cotton seed commodities and poultry, for which tolerance-level residues
were assumed. The appropriate cRfD value for novaluron is 0.011
mg/kg/day, based upon the NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg/day from the chronic
carcinogenicity study in rats, and an UF of 100. The chronic dietary
exposures account for 4.0% to 22.8% of the cPAD. The most highly exposed
subpopulation, children aged 1-2 years, has an estimated total novaluron
exposure (0.002505 mg/kg/day) that is equal to 22.8% of the cPAD. The
estimated novaluron exposure for the general U.S. population (0.000700
mg/kg/day) is equivalent to 6.4% of the cPAD.

c.     Novaluron was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.''. Therefore, a quantitative cancer risk assessment was not
conducted.

ii.     Drinking Water

		a. 	Acute Exposure. Since no acute dietary endpoint was determined,
Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., concludes there is reasonable
certainty of no harm from acute drinking water exposure.

		b.    Chronic Exposure.

There are no monitoring data for novaluron to complete a comprehensive
risk assessment for novaluron in drinking water. Therefore, the
Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS,
Tier 2 model) was used for the concentration of novaluron (parent) in
surface water, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST, Tier I model) was used to estimate surface water
concentrations of the chlorophenyl urea and chloroaniline degradates.
For “Screening Concentrations In Ground Water” the SCI-GROW model
was used, assuming that novaluron may reach the surface or the ground
water via the parent compound or via the its degradates. The modeling
represents upper-bound estimates based on the environmental
characteristics and associated modeling parameters, which are designed
to provide conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water
concentrations, which will not likely be exceeded. Chronic estimates for
the terminal degradate, chloroaniline, represent the worst case,
assuming 100% conversion of the parent compound. Based on the use of
novaluron on apples (highest application rate among all uses), the
calculated EECs of novaluron derived from these models are 2.61 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.009 ppb for ground water. The
chronic dietary exposure assessment includes as the worst case the
annual average concentration of 2.61 ppb in surface water.

		2.	Non-Dietary Exposure

	Presently and in the future, novaluron is not considered for
residential uses. Novaluron is not registered for use on any sites that
would result in residential exposure. The term ``residential exposure''
refers to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and
garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and
tick control on pets). Therefore, there is no non-dietary exposure
(acute, short-term, intermediate-term or chronic).

D.	Cumulative Effects

To Makhteshim-Agan of North America’s Inc., knowledge, there are
currently no available data or other reliable information indicating
that any toxic effects produced by novaluron would be cumulative with
those of other chemical compounds; thus only the potential risks of
novaluron have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate
exposure.

E.	 Safety Determination

   	1.     U.S. Population

No acute aggregate risk assessment was conducted because there is no
toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure.  Short- and
intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments were not performed because
of no current or future residential uses. No cancer aggregate risk
assessment was conducted because novaluron has not been shown to be
carcinogenic.  Therefore, only a chronic aggregate risk assessment was
performed based on potential exposure from food and drinking water,
considering all existing and proposed uses.  The chronic exposure of the
U.S. population utilizes 6.4% of the cRfD, and the most sensitive
population subgroup (children 1 to 2 years old) utilizes 22.8% of the
cRfD.  In view of these assessments, Makhteshim-Agan of North America
Inc., concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from the proposed uses of novaluron.

		2.	 Infants and Children

Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA may apply an additional safety
factor for infants and children to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database. The toxicology database
for novaluron is complete including acceptable data from rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and a two generation rat reproduction
study that have been used to assess the potential for increased
sensitivity of infants and children. The data provided no quantitative
or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits
to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to novaluron. In addition there is
no concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to
novaluron, and a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
Therefore, the Agency determined in its recent review to reduce the FQPA
Safety Factor to 1X (Federal Register of June 2, 2004; 69 FR 31013;
FRL-7359-2). Thus, the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is
considered 0.011 mg/kg/day. The DEEM analysis regarding the aggregate
chronic exposure calculations utilizes less than 22.8% of the cPAD for
the most sensitive subgroup, children 1 to 2 years old. Therefore,
Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc., concludes that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to novaluron residues.

F.	International Residue Limits

At present, there are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex maximum residue
limits (MRLs) established for novaluron on tomato, tomato paste, and
sugarcane, cane. Therefore, international harmonization is not an issue
at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 62317]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8417-004]

Notice of Application for Surrender of Exemption, Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests: Sparhawk, LLC

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Application for surrender of exemption from
licensing.
    b. Project No.: 8417-004.
    c. Date Filed: November 6, 2018.
    d. Exemptee: Sparhawk Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Old Sparhawk Mill Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Royal River in
Cumberland County, Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Licensee Contact: Mr. Allan Jagger, Sparhawk, LLC, 81 Bridge
Street, Yarmouth, ME, [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. 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, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-8417-004.
    k. Description of Project Facilities: The project includes an 8-
foot-high, 140-foot-long dam; a 9-acre reservoir; an approximate 215-
foot-long, 7-foot-diameter penstock; a powerhouse with 3 generating
units; an 18-foot-wide, 80-foot-long tailrace channel; a buried
transmission line; and appurtenant facilities.
    l. Description of Request: The licensee is proposing to surrender
its exemption. The exemptee purchased the property for redevelopment
and was unaware of the exemption from licensing attached to the
project. The generating facilities were removed from the project and it
has not operated in more than three years. The dam is owned by the Town
of Yarmouth, and the installed fishway has been maintained by the State
of Maine. The project would remain in its current condition and no
ground disturbing activities are proposed.
    m. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888
First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202)
502-8371.
    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.212 and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments 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 comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (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. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to the surrender application that is the subject of this notice.
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. If an intervener 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. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    q. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments.

    Dated: November 27, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26203 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 45303]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19053]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

    Form F-6; OMB Control No. 3235-0292; SEC File No. 270-270.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval.
    Form F-6 (17 CFR 239.36) is a form used by foreign companies to
register the offer and sale of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs)
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form F-6
requires disclosure of information regarding the terms of the
depository bank, fees charged, and a description of the ADRs. No
special information regarding the foreign company is required to be
prepared or disclosed, although the foreign company must be one which
periodically furnishes information to the Commission. The information
is needed to ensure that investors in ADRs have full disclosure of
information concerning the deposit agreement and the foreign company.
Form F-6 takes approximately 1 hour per response to prepare and is
filed by 150 respondents annually. We estimate that 25% of the 1 hour
per response (0.25 hours) is prepared by the filer for a total annual
reporting burden of 37.5 hours (0.25 hours per response x 150
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 22, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19053 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


#THIS SCRIPT CALCULATES THE PROBABILITY A SYSTEM HAS TREATMENT CHANGE                	  #
#CREATED BY TOM BENEKE (THE CADMUS GROUP) 04/17/2018									  #
###########################################################################################

#import libraries
library(plyr)
library(stringr)

#set working directory
setwd("C:/Users/thomas.beneke/Desktop/ChangeSourceTreatment_04122018")

#read in source data
#this is a CSV version of Laura's "tblWSF-Treat" table in the "ChangeTreat-QA" Access database
wsf.df <- read.csv("tblWSF-Treat.csv", stringsAsFactors=FALSE, header=FALSE)
colnames(wsf.df) <- c("PWSID","FacilityID","IsSourceInd","Active_YN","FacilityDeadline","DeactiveDate","FacilityType","WaterType","Availability",
						"SellerPWSID","SellerTreatment","TreatProcess","TreatObj","TreatID","TreatCode","TreatPID","WaterTypeCode","ReportedYear","SourceCode")

#read in community water system table
#this is a CSV version of Laura's "tblC_NTNC" table in the "ChangeInTreat-QA" Access database
cws.df <- read.csv("tblC_NTNC.csv", stringsAsFactors=FALSE, header=TRUE)
cws.df$PWSID <- cws.df$PWS.ID

#read in size category sorting CSV
sort.ord <- read.csv("SortSizeCategories.csv", stringsAsFactors = FALSE, header=TRUE)

#read in pwsids that were already included in source change counts/probabilities
src.chng <- read.csv("Unique_PWSIDs_SourceChange.csv", stringsAsFactors = FALSE, header = TRUE)

#join cws data to wsf dataframe & remove unnecessary columns
wsf.cws <- join(wsf.df, cws.df, by=c('PWSID'), type='left', match='all')
wsf.cws <- wsf.cws[,c("PWSID","FacilityID","PWS.Type","TreatCode","TreatPID","CCT_YN","GW.or.SW","Size.Category","IsSourceInd","ReportedYear","SourceCode","Availability")]

#select only community water systems and add "points" field
wsf.cws <- wsf.cws[wsf.cws$PWS.Type == "Community water system" & wsf.cws$Availability != "Emergency" & is.na(wsf.cws$PWS.Type) == FALSE,]
wsf.cws <- wsf.cws[wsf.cws$PWSID %in% cws.df$PWSID == TRUE,]
wsf.cws$Points <- 1

#add unique identifier for Treat Code ID - Process Code ID combination
wsf.cws$TID_PID <- paste0(wsf.cws$TreatCode,"_",wsf.cws$TreatPID)
wsf.cws <- wsf.cws[wsf.cws$PWSID %in% src.chng$PWSID == FALSE,]

#aggregate counts by PWSID, source type, and year, for each year
yr13 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID + ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws[wsf.cws$ReportedYear == 2013 & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "-" & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "",], "sum")
yr14 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID + ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws[wsf.cws$ReportedYear == 2014 & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "-" & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "",], "sum")
yr15 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID + ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws[wsf.cws$ReportedYear == 2015 & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "-" & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "",], "sum")
yr16 <- aggregate(Points ~ PWSID + ReportedYear, data = wsf.cws[wsf.cws$ReportedYear == 2016 & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "-" & wsf.cws$TreatCode != "",], "sum")

#create empty dataframe to append counts by year to
pws <- data.frame(Obj_ID = seq(1:length(unique(wsf.cws$PWSID))),PWSID = unique(wsf.cws$PWSID))

#merge in each year's counts of wells
pws <- merge(pws,yr13[,c(1,3)],by="PWSID",all=TRUE)
pws <- merge(pws,yr14[,c(1,3)],by="PWSID",all=TRUE)
pws <- merge(pws,yr15[,c(1,3)],by="PWSID",all=TRUE)
pws <- merge(pws,yr16[,c(1,3)],by="PWSID",all=TRUE)

#remove unnecessary columns
pws <- pws[,c(1,3,4,5,6)]
colnames(pws) <- c("PWSID","y13","y14","y15","y16")

#change NAs to 0 for numeric calculations
pws$y13[is.na(pws$y13)==TRUE] <- 0
pws$y14[is.na(pws$y14)==TRUE] <- 0
pws$y15[is.na(pws$y15)==TRUE] <- 0
pws$y16[is.na(pws$y16)==TRUE] <- 0

#identify year sequences with a change
pws$cnt_delta_1314 <- 0
pws$cnt_delta_1415 <- 0
pws$cnt_delta_1516 <- 0
pws$cnt_delta_1314[pws$y14 > pws$y13] <- 1
pws$cnt_delta_1415[pws$y15 > pws$y14] <- 1
pws$cnt_delta_1516[pws$y16 > pws$y15] <- 1

#join size category, source type, and cct designation back into dataframe
pws <- join(pws, cws.df[,c(37,23,8,12)][cws.df$PWS.Type == "Community water system" & is.na(cws.df$PWS.Type) == FALSE,], by=c('PWSID'), type='left', match='all')
pws$CCT_YN[pws$CCT_YN == 1] <- "Y"
pws$CCT_YN[pws$CCT_YN == 0] <- "N"

#remove rows for PWS IDs that were already counted in the source change probabilities
pws <- pws[pws$PWSID %in% src.chng$PWSID == FALSE,]

#write CSV of systems with a treatment change
pws.chng <- pws
pws.chng$changecount <- rowSums(pws.chng[,(6:8)], na.rm=TRUE)
pws.chng <- pws.chng[,c(1,12)][pws.chng$changecount >=1,]
pws.chng <- pws.chng[duplicated(pws.chng)==FALSE,]
write.csv(pws.chng, "Unique_PWSIDs_TreatChange.csv", row.names=FALSE)

#add counts of number of system changes by year
prob1314 <- aggregate(cnt_delta_1314 ~ CCT_YN + Size.Category + GW.or.SW, data = pws, "sum")
prob1415 <- aggregate(cnt_delta_1415 ~ CCT_YN + Size.Category + GW.or.SW, data = pws, "sum")
prob1516 <- aggregate(cnt_delta_1516 ~ CCT_YN + Size.Category + GW.or.SW, data = pws, "sum")
probs <- prob1314
probs$cnt_delta_1415[match(probs$CCT_YN,prob1415$CCT_YN) & match(probs$Size.Category,prob1415$Size.Category) & match(probs$GW.or.SW,prob1415$GW.or.SW)] <- prob1415$cnt_delta_1415[match(probs$CCT_YN,prob1415$CCT_YN) & match(probs$Size.Category,prob1415$Size.Category) & match(probs$GW.or.SW,prob1415$GW.or.SW)]
probs$cnt_delta_1516[match(probs$CCT_YN,prob1516$CCT_YN) & match(probs$Size.Category,prob1516$Size.Category) & match(probs$GW.or.SW,prob1516$GW.or.SW)] <- prob1516$cnt_delta_1516[match(probs$CCT_YN,prob1516$CCT_YN) & match(probs$Size.Category,prob1516$Size.Category) & match(probs$GW.or.SW,prob1516$GW.or.SW)]

#add counts of all pws systems by size category,cct,and source water type
pws.unique <- cws.df[,c(37,3,8,12,23)][duplicated(cws.df[,c(37,3,8,12,23)])==FALSE & cws.df$PWS.Type == "Community water system",]
colnames(pws.unique) <- c("PWSID","PWS.Type","Size.Category","GW.or.SW","CCT")
pws.unique$CCT[pws.unique$CCT == 0] <- "N"
pws.unique$CCT[pws.unique$CCT == 1] <- "Y"
pws.unique$Points <- 1
all.sys <- aggregate(Points ~ CCT + Size.Category + GW.or.SW, data = pws.unique, "sum")
all.sys$UnqID <- paste0(all.sys$CCT,"_",all.sys$Size.Category,"_",all.sys$GW.or.SW)

#add unique id and join to table of all system counts by category
probs$UnqID <- paste0(probs$CCT_YN,"_",probs$Size.Category,"_",probs$GW.or.SW)
probs <- join(probs, all.sys[,c(5,4)], by=c('UnqID'), type='left', match='all')
probs$Points[is.na(probs$Points)==TRUE] <- 0
probs <- probs[,c(1:6,8)]
colnames(probs) <- c("CCT_YN","SizeCat","GW_SW","cnt_delta_1314","cnt_delta_1415","cnt_delta_1516","cnt_all_pws")

#calculate probabilities
probs$prob1314 <- round(probs$cnt_delta_1314/probs$cnt_all_pws,2)
probs$prob1415 <- round(probs$cnt_delta_1415/probs$cnt_all_pws,2)
probs$prob1516 <- round(probs$cnt_delta_1516/probs$cnt_all_pws,2)
probs$prob_avg <- round((probs$prob1314 + probs$prob1415 + probs$prob1516)/3,2)

#sort probabilities according to SDWIS format
probs$SortOrd <- sort.ord$SortOrder[match(probs$SizeCat,sort.ord$SizeCat)]
probs <- probs[order(probs$GW_SW,probs$SortOrd),]

#write to file
write.csv(probs, "Probability_TreatmentChange_041718.csv", row.names=FALSE, na="")