	SUPPORTING STATEMENT

NESHAP FOR THE PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART LLL) (FINAL RULE)

PART A

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection

(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

This is a revision to the existing approved information collection request (ICR).  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements in the existing rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracking number for this request is ICR number1801.06.

(b) Short Characterization.

Potential respondents are owners or operators of portland cement manufacturing facilities subject to the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for new, existing or reconstructed kiln and in-line kiln/raw mill at these facilities, except for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills that burn hazardous waste and are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE or that burn municipal solid waste and are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb or Ea.  Emission limits for mercury from new cement kilns are established under the final amendments. A mercury performance test is required to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for mercury. The final amendments establish emission limits for total hydrocarbons (THC) for new kilns and revise the emission limits for new greenfield kilns.  To demonstrate compliance with the THC limits, owners or operators of new kilns would be required to continuously monitor THC emissions. To ensure proper combustion of organic HAP from existing kilns, owners or operators of portland cement manufacturing plants must implement good combustion practices (GCP) designed to minimize THC from fuel combustion. Respondents are required to maintain additional records to demonstrate compliance with THC limits. The final amendments also require that records be kept of the amount of cement kiln dust (CKD) that is removed from existing and new kiln systems and either disposed of as solid waste or otherwise recycled for a beneficial use outside of the kiln system. These requirements are listed in Attachment 1.

2.  Need For and Use of the Collection

(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414 et seq.) (CAA) requires that EPA establish MACT standards for new or existing major or area sources according to the requirements in section 112(d). Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to:  (1) confirm the compliance status of major sources, identify any non-major sources not subject to the standards, and identify new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards; and (2) ensure that the MACT standards are being achieved on a continuous basis.  These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA and set out in the General Provisions for national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.

(b)	Use/Users of the Data.

The additional information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to ensure that the emission limitations for new kilns are being achieved and that existing kilns are being operated properly.  Based on review of the recorded information at the site and the reported information, EPA can identify facilities that may not be in compliance and decide which plants, records, or processes should be inspected.

3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

(a)	Nonduplication.

No other regulation currently requires the same information requested under this ICR from owners or operators of non-hazardous waste portland cement kilns. In the event that certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the final amendments, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the information that would be required in the semi-annual compliance report. Therefore, no duplication exists.

(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB.

This section is not applicable because this is a rule-related ICR.

(c)	Consultations.

The final amendments were developed in consultation with State and local agencies, individual portland cement manufacturing plants and industry trade associations, as well as environmental groups. We specifically consulted with stakeholders on some of the ICR requirements of these final amendments.  Other requirements in the final amendments were contained in the proposed amendments or exist in the current rule.  Participants in the development process for the current rule included STAPPA/ALAPCO, the Portland Cement Association (PCA), the American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA), the Small Company MACT Coalition, the Sierra Club, and Earth Justice.  Several meetings with industry representatives were held in the period leading to proposal and the final amendments, and public comments received from trade associations, cement companies, State and local regulatory agencies, and environmental groups were considered in the development of the current rule. Public comments received following proposal were considered in developing the final amendments regarding monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting procedures.  Several of the non-EPA persons consulted prior to promulgation of the final amendments are identified in Table 1.

TABLE 1.  PERSONS CONSULTED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CURRENT RULE

Contact	Organization	Telephone Number

Ann Dougherty	Portland Cement Association<PHONE_NUMBER>

Andy O'Hare	American Portland Cement Alliance<PHONE_NUMBER>

Neal J. Cabral	Small Cement Company MACT Coalition<PHONE_NUMBER>

Jack Lauber	New York State DEC/Division of Air Resources<PHONE_NUMBER>

Bruce Gaylord	Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County (Kentucky)<PHONE_NUMBER>

James Pew	Sierra Club<PHONE_NUMBER>

(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA would not be reasonably assured that a plant is in compliance with the standards.

(e)	General Guidelines.

None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded.

(f)	Confidentiality.

All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B -- Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

(g)  Sensitive Questions.

This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes.

In the final amendments, respondents are 94 owners or operators of existing portland cement manufacturing plants and any new portland cement plants.  It is estimated that twenty new kilns will be built over the 5 year-period after promulgation of the amendments. All respondents will be subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.  The NAICS code for this industry is 327310, Cement Manufacturing.

(b) Information Requested.

(i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements.  Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements, summarizes the final recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(ii) Respondent Activities.  The respondent activities required by the final amendments are identified in Table 2 and introduced in section 6(a).

5.	The Information Collected(Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

(a)	Agency Activities.

A list of Agency activities is provided in Table 3 and introduced in section 6(c).

(b)	Collection Methodology and Management.

This is not relevant to this information collection request.

(c)	Small Entity Flexibility.

A small entity for this industry is defined by the Small Business Administration as a firm having no more than 750 employees.  Of the 35 companies (PCA”U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry:  Plant Information Summary,” 2004) that would be subject to the final amendments, six companies are considered small entities. However, the amendments are unlikely to impose any significant additional regulatory costs on existing small entities because the only cost implication for existing small entities is the requirement to keep records of CKD wastage. New kilns will be required to continuously monitor THC emissions although this cost is not considered significant and is not likely to have any appreciable effect on the cost of goods produced.  New kilns will also be required to conduct an initial and periodic performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission limits. Again, the cost for this test is not significant and is unlikely to have any appreciable effect on the cost of cement produced. The amendments are also structured to reduce the amount of monitoring and performance testing that would be required by allowing the owner or operator to conduct continuous monitoring for THC instead of monitoring or testing for all organic HAPs. Monitoring to assure compliance with the THC emission limit will be done using a THC CEM. The amendments also allow performance testing for mercury by either EPA Method 29 or ASTM D6784-02 (the Ontario Hydro Method).

(d) Collection Schedule.

The specific collection frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 2.

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden.

The annual burden estimates for the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final amendments are shown in Table 2.  These numbers were derived from estimates based on EPA’s experience with other standards.

(b)	 Estimating Respondent Costs.

The information collection activities for the final amendments are presented in Table 2.  Because much of the data are already collected by respondents or required by existing law, minimal respondent development costs are associated with the information collection activities for the final amendments.

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs.  Technical, management, and clerical average hourly labor rates and associated costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. Technical, management, and clerical average hourly rates for private workers were taken from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2006, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group” available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.to2.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.to2.htm . Wages for occupational groups are used as the basis for the labor rates with a total compensation of $42.68/hour for technical, $49.62/hour for managerial, and $21.33/hour for clerical. These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the cost of overhead. An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs. The fully-burdened hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor costs are: $89.63/hour for technical, $104.21/hour for managerial, and $44.79/hour for clerical.  These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and the cost of overhead and are used to account for the recordkeeping and reporting costs of the proposed amendments.

(ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.  It is assumed that a THC CEM will be installed on each new kiln. The capital cost and the O&M cost of the THC monitor were estimated using an updated Version 3 of EPA’s Continuous Emission Monitoring System Cost Model.

(iii) Capital/Startup vs. O&M Costs.  The cost of a THC monitor for a new kiln is $139,800. O&M costs for the monitor are $22,073/kiln/yr.

(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs.  For a THC monitor on a new kiln, the annualized capital cost is between $11,713 and $15,352/kiln utilizing capital discount rates of 3% and 7%, respectively. For purposes of reporting annualized costs for this ICR, the 7% capital discount rate is used.

(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements.  Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under the NESHAP General Provisions, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government.  Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Compliance Data System, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR.  Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program, and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR.  The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, as presented in Table 3.

The Agency labor rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2003 General Schedule which excludes locality rates of pay.  These rates can be obtained from Salary Table 2006-GS available on the OPM website, http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf.  The government employee labor rates are $14.95/hour for clerical (GS-7, Step 1), $31.54 for technical (GS-13, Step 1), and $43.85/hr for management (GS-15, Step 1).  These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the cost of overhead.  An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs.  The fully-burdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor costs are:  clerical at $31.40; technical at $66.23, and management at $92.09.

(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs.

The EPA estimates that 94 existing plants will be subject to the final amendments and will maintain records of the amount of CKD recycling and wastage. Therefore, the average annual number of existing respondents is 31.3 (94 total respondents/3). It is estimated that 4 new kilns/year will come online during the 3 year clearance period and will be subject to the amendments.  All new kilns will install the required monitoring equipment, conduct initial performance tests, provide notification of performance tests and keep records, including records of CKD recycled/wasted, during the 3-year clearance period of this ICR. The total number of existing and new respondents is 35.3.

The total annual number of responses for the existing rule is 418.   The number of increased responses for the final amendments is 51.3.  This number is calculated by multiplying the number of respondents/yr subject to notification requirements (Column D, Table 2, Burden item 4.E) by the number of occurrences/respondent (Column B, Table 2, Burden item 4.E) and summing the products.  Thus, the total number of responses for the rule is 469.3 (418+ 51.3).

(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

(i)  Respondent tally.  The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Table 2, are calculated by adding person-hours per year down each column for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column.  The average annual burden for the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the existing rule is 17,526 person hours with an annualized capital and O&M costs of $792,000.  The increased average annual burden for the proposed amendments is 4,159 person hours with an annual average cost of $679,105 for technical, management, and clerical hours with annualized capital/startup cost of $161,672 for a total cost of $840,777.  The total annual average burden for the rule, including the final amendments will be 21,685 (17,526+4,159) person hours with a total annualized capital/startup cost of $953,672 ($792,000+$161,672).

(ii)  The Agency tally.  The average annual Federal Government cost for the existing rule is $185,557.  The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs for the proposed amendments, presented in Table 3, are calculated by adding person-hours per year down each column for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column.  In this case, total cost is the sum of this total salary cost and total travel expenses for tests attended.  The increased total annual hours are 213. The increased total annual cost is $16,100.  The total average annual cost of the rule, including the final amendments, is $201,657 ($185,557+$16,100).

(iii)  Variations in the annual bottom line.   This section does not apply since no significant variation is anticipated.

(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden.

The increase in burden is primarily due to the additional performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs attributable to the final amendments.  It is also due to the use of more current labor rates for calculating the industry and Agency burden.

(g)  Burden Statement

The increased average annual respondent burden for one facility is estimated at 118 (4,159/35.3) hours.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, which is available for online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 and OMB Control Number 2060-0416 in any correspondence.

PART B

This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with the final amendments.

	TABLE 2.  ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Burden item	(A)

Person-hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent	(C)

Person-hours per respondent

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year*	(E)

Technical person-hours per year (E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year (Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $ **

1. Applications	N/A

	2. Surveys and Studies	N/A

	3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems 16	1	16	35.3	564.8	28.2	56.5	$56096

4. Reporting Requirements

A. Read instructions	2	1	2	35.3	70.6	3.5	7.1	$7,012

B. Required activities

Initial THC performance test	280	1	280	4	1120	56	112	111,238

Initial Hg performance test	280	1	280	4	1120	56	112	111,238

C. Create information	See 4B

	D. Gather existing information	See 4B

	E. Write report

Initial compliance certification	2	1	2	35.3	70.6	3.5	7.1	$7,012

Notification of anticipated startup	2	1	2	4	8.0	0.4	0.8	$795

Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	4	8.0	0.4	0.8	$795

Notification of Hg performance test	2	1	2	4	8.0	0.4	0.8	$795

Report of performance test	See 4B

	Report of monitoring exceedances	8	1	8	4	32.0	1.6	3.2	$3178

5. Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Read instructions	See 4A

	B. Plan activities	2	1	2	35.3	70.6	3.5	7.1	$7012

C. Implement activities	2	1	2	35.3	70.6	3.5	7.1	$7012

D. Develop record system	2	1	2	35.3	70.6	3.5	7.1	$7012

E. Time to enter information	2	4	8	35.3	282.4	14.1	28.2	$28,048

F. Time to train personnel	2	1	2	35.3	70.6	3.5	7.1	$7012

G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements	0	0	0

0.0	0.0	0.0	$0

H. Time to transmit or disclose information	0.25	2	0.5	35.3	17.7	0.9	1.8 $1753

I. Time for CEM audits	8	1	8	4	32.0	1.6	3.2	$3178

J. Time to record amount of cement recycled and amount wasted	0.25	365 91.25	35.3	3221.1	161.1	322.1	$319,921

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST

	3,616.5	180.8	361.6	$679,105

Total labor burden (hours)

4,159

Annualized cost of capital

$73,380

Operation and maintenance

$88,292

TOTAL ANNUAL COST (Labor + Annualized Capital + O&M)

$840,777

* Number of respondents: 94 existing plants over 3-yr term of ICR is 31.3 respondent. Four new kilns per year are projected.

b Costs are based on the following hourly rates:  technical at $89.63, management at $104.21, and clerical at $44.79.

	TABLE 3.  ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE FEDERAL/STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Burden item	(A)

Hours per occurrence	(B)

Hours per plant per year	(C)

Plants per year	(D)

Technical person-hours per respondent

(D=BxC)	(E)

Management person-hours per year (Dx0.05)	(F)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Dx0.1)	(G)

Cost, $ **

Initial performance test	5	1	4	1	0.02	0.4	$296

Repeat performance test-Retesting preparation	N/A

Repeat performance- Retesting	N/A

Litigation	N/A

Excess Emission Enforcement Activities	N/A

Report Review

	Notification of construction /reconstruction	N/A

Notification of anticipated startup	2	2	4	8	0.4	0.8	592

Notification of actual startup	2	2	4	8	0.4	0.8	592

Notification of special compliance requirements	N/A

Notification of applicability	N/A

Notification of initial performance test	2	2	4	8	0.4	0.8	592

Notification of CEMS performance evaluation	2	2	4	8	0.4	0.8	592

CEMS QA plan	2	2	4	8	0.4	0.8	592

Notification of compliance status	2	2	35.3	70.6	3.53	7.06	5,223

Site-specific test plan	N/A

	0	0	0	0

Repeat performance test report	N/A

	0	0	0	0

Semi-annual compliance report	2	2	35.3	70.6	3.53	7.06	5,223

NESHAP waiver application	N/A

	0	0	0	0

Compliance extension request	N/A

	0	0	0	0

Emergency startup, shutdown, and malfunction report	N/A

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST

185.2	9.26	18.52	$13,700

Total labor burden (hours)

	213

Travel Expenses for Tests Attended (1 person x 4 test site x 2 days/test x $50 per diem + $500/round trip x 4 test site/yr) 	$,2400

TOTAL ANNUAL COST ($13,700 + 2,400)

$16,100

a Costs are based on the following hourly rates:  technical at $66.23, management at $92.09, and clerical at $31.40.

ATTACHMENT 1

SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

Requirement

Regulation citation

General Provisions citation

Record retention

Notifications

Anticipated startup

63.1353(b)(1)

63.9(b)(3)

5 years

Actual startup

63.1353(b)(1)

63.9(b)(4)

5 years

Performance test

63.1353(b)(2)

63.7 & 63.9(e)

5 years

CEM performance evaluation

63.1353(b)(4)

63.8(e)

5 years

Compliance status

63.1353(b)(5)

63.9(h)

5 years

Reports

Performance test

63.1354(b)(1)

63.10(d)

	5 years

Monitoring exceedance

63.1354(b)(8) - (10)

63.10(e)(5)

	5 years

No excess emissions

63.1354(b)(9)

63.10(e)(5)

	5 years

Startup, shutdown, malfunction

63.1354(b)(4) - (5)

63.10(d)(5)

5 years

	RECORDKEEPING

Record retention

63.1355(a)

63.10(b)(1)

5 years

General NESHAP records

63.1355(b)(1) - (3)

63.10(b)(2) - (3)

5 years

CMS performance records

63.1355(c)

63.10(c)

5 years

Cement kiln dust records

63.1355(d)

63.10(b)(2) - (3)

5 years

 PAGE

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9708]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3767]

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

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.

Extension: Rule 6c-7, SEC File No. 270-269, OMB Control No. 3235-
0276.

    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 (the ``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 extension and approval.
    Rule 6c-7 (17 CFR 270.6c-7) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``1940 Act'') provides exemption from
certain provisions of Sections 22(e) and 27 of the 1940 Act for
registered separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts to
certain employees of Texas institutions of higher education
participating in the Texas Optional Retirement Program. There are
approximately 50 registrants governed by rule 6c-7. The burden of
compliance with rule 6c-7, in connection with the registrants obtaining
from a purchaser, prior to or at the time of purchase, a signed
document acknowledging the restrictions on redeemability imposed by
Texas law, is estimated to be approximately 3 minutes of professional
time per response for each of approximately 2,400 purchasers annually
(at an estimated $67 per hour),\1\ for a total annual burden of 120
hours (at a total annual cost of $8,040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ $67/hour figure for a Compliance Clerk is from SIFMA's
Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2010, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work year and
multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules or forms. The Commission does not include in the
estimate of average burden hours the time preparing registration
statements and sales literature disclosure regarding the restrictions
on redeemability imposed by Texas law. The estimate of burden hours for
completing the relevant registration statements are reported on the
separate PRA submissions for those statements. (See the separate PRA
submissions for Form N-3 (17 CFR 274.11b) and Form N-4 (17 CFR
274.11c.)
    The Commission requests written comments 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 of 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
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    February 14, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3767 Filed 2-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66739-66740]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0750]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0006,
Shipping Articles. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose
paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0750] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulation.gov.
(b) To OIRA by e-mail via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, US Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St SW., STOP 7101, Washington DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2011-0750], and must be received by November 28,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0750], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it

will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0750'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0750'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0006.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (76 FR 52338, August 22, 2011)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Shipping Articles.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0006.
    Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Shipping companies.
    Abstract: Title 46 United States Code Sec.  10302 and 10502 and
Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14.201 require applicable
owners, charterers, managing operators, masters, or individuals in
charge to make a shipping agreement in writing with each seaman before
the seaman commences employment. Additionally, 46 CFR 14.313 requires
shipping companies to submit Shipping Articles to the Coast Guard:
three years after the article was generated; upon going out of business
or merger with another company; or upon request by the Coast Guard.
Upon receipt and acceptance, Shipping Articles are transferred and
archived at the Federal Records Center in Suitland, Maryland.
    Forms: CG-705A.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 18,000 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 21, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-27756 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	March 25, 2015

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	March 24, 2015 Presentation to the monthly meeting of the Dallas Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.  The presentation discussed the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants as part of the overall Methane Strategy.

SUMMARY

      A presentation was made by EPA at the monthly meeting of the Dallas Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.  The presentation discussed the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants as part of the overall Methane Strategy.  The meeting was in Dallas, Texas.

ATTENDEES

Participants:	The meeting was a dinner with business functions.  There was no sign-in registration provided.

EPA Participant:	Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-428, OMB Control No. 3235-0478]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 11a1-1(T)

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
11a1-1(T) (17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    On January 27, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 11a1-1(T) to
exempt certain exempt transactions of exchange members for their own
accounts that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 11(a) of the
Exchange Act. The Rule provides that a member's proprietary order may
be executed on the exchange of which the trader is a member, if, among
other things: (1) The member discloses that a bid or offer for its
account is for its account to any member with whom such bid or offer is
placed or to whom it is communicated; (2) any such member through whom
that bid or offer is communicated discloses to others participating in
effecting the order that it is for the account of a member; and (3)
immediately before executing the order, a member (other than a
specialist in such security) presenting any order for the account of a
member on the exchange clearly announces or otherwise indicates to the
specialist and to other members then present that he is presenting an
order for the account of a member.
    Without these requirements, it would not be possible for the
Commission to monitor its mandate under the Exchange Act to promote
fair and orderly markets and ensure that exchange members have, as the
principle purpose of their exchange memberships, the conduct of a
public securities business.
    There are approximately 538 respondents that require an aggregate
total of approximately 15 hours to comply with this Rule. Each of these
approximately 538 respondents makes an estimated 20 annual responses,
for an aggregate of 10,760 responses per year. Each response takes
approximately 5 seconds to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is approximately 15 hours (10,760 x 5 seconds/60 seconds per
minute/60 minutes per hour = 15 hours). The approximate internal cost
of compliance per hour is $355, resulting in a total internal cost of
compliance of approximately $5,325 per year (15 hours @$355).
    Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) is necessary for exchange members to
make transactions for their own accounts under a specific exemption
from the general prohibition of such transactions under Section 11(a)
of the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) does not involve the
collection of confidential information. Rule 11a-1(T) does not have a
record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant
to Rule 11a-1(T) may be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: http://www.reginfo.gov/. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12102 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19755-19756]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2701-059]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of
Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and
Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study
Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2701-059.
    c. Dated Filed: February 28, 2018.
    d. Submitted By: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie).
    e. Name of Project: West Canada Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On West Canada Creek, a tributary of the Mohawk River,
in the counties of Oneida and Herkimer, New York. The project does not
occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Steven Murphy, Director, Licensing,
Brookfield Renewable, 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, NY 13069, (315)
598-6130, [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Nicholas Ettema at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC 61,076
(2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402, and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Erie as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. On February 28, 2018, Erie filed with the Commission a Pre-
Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents 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]. 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-
2701-059.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on
Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or
Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity
interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1,
and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by June 29,
2018.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and location of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018.
    Time: 7:00 p.m.
    Location: Town of Trenton Municipal Center, 8520 Old Poland Road,
Barneveld, New York 13304.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Location: Town of Trenton Municipal Center, 8520 Old Poland Road,
Barneveld, New York 13304.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the
scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the eLibrary link. Follow the directions for accessing
information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a
Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised
process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified
through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental
site review of the project on Wednesday, May 30, 2018, starting at
10:00 a.m. All participants should meet at the Prospect Boat Launch,
located on State Route 365 approximately \2/3\ mile east of Prospect,
NY 13435. To attend the environmental site review, please RSVP via
email to [email protected] on or before May 23,
2018. Persons not providing an RSVP by May 23, 2018, will not be
allowed on the environmental site review.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public record of the project.

    Dated: April 30, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09486 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41813-41815]
[DOCID:fr19au09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0686; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-044-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-
11F 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 McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This
proposed AD would require a one-time inspection to determine if wires
touch the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and
marking the location, if necessary; a one-time inspection of all wire
bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for splices and
damage; a one-time inspection for damage to the fuel vapor barrier seal
and upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank; and
corrective actions, if necessary. This proposed AD would also require
installation of nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new
attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. This proposed AD
results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are
proposing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 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 proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
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-2009-0686;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-044-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

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination

with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.
    We have received a report that wire bundles routed above the center
upper auxiliary fuel tank are in close proximity to the upper surface
of the tank on certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes. In addition, some wire harness mounts may have loosened,
allowing the wires to contact the tank. This condition may cause wire
damage or chafing that can lead to possible arcing, sparking, and burn-
through on the fuel tank upper surface, which can result in a fuel tank
explosion.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1,
dated June 18, 2009, which describes procedures for the following
actions.
     A general visual inspection to determine if wires touch
the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank; and marking
the location(s) where the wire bundle(s) contacts the upper surface of
the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.
     A detailed inspection for splices and damage (such as
chafing, arcing, and broken insulation) of all wire bundles above the
center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and corrective actions if necessary.
The corrective actions include repairing or replacing damaged wires,
and relocating any splice.
     A detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the upper
surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor barrier
seal, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions
include repairing the vapor barrier seal and contacting Boeing for
repair instructions and doing the repair.
     Installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving to the wire
harnesses, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded
channel, to raise the wire harnesses off the upper surface of the
center upper auxiliary fuel tank.

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 Proposed AD and Service Information.''

Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18,
2009, 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 a Structures 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 111 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 U.S.-
              Action                    Work hours        Average labor          Parts           Cost per product      registered         Fleet cost
                                                          rate per hour                                                 airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection/Installation \1\......  136 to 154..........             $80  $9,405 to $12,201...  $20,285 to $24,521..             111  $2,251,635 to
                                                                                $2,721,831.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane configuration.

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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2009-0686; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-044-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 5, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in
fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and
(g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009, except as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection to determine if wires touch
the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and mark
the location, as applicable.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection for splices and damage of all wire
bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the
upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.
    (4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the fuel
vapor barrier seal.
    (5) Install nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new
attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel.
    (h) If damage (burn marks) is found on the upper surface of the
center upper auxiliary fuel tank during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-
126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009, specifies to contact Boeing
for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the auxiliary
fuel tank using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (i) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD
according to Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, dated March 3,
2009, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562) 627-5262; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
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 of the center upper auxiliary tank required by
this AD, if it is approved by a Structures Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
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 August 4, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19850 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 15, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19039

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. (SPIRIT) filed 7/15/05 for:

XX  Waiver of start-up condition for scheduled services in the Ft.
Lauderdale-

Mexico City market

Background:

By Notice of Action Taken dated September 22, 2004, the Department
granted Spirit’s application, in Docket OST-2004-19039, to conduct
daily Ft. Lauderdale-Mexico City combination services with MD-80
aircraft on a year-round basis, beginning January 15, 2005.  Consistent
with our policy for U.S.-Mexico route awards, the authority was subject
to the condition that the dormancy notice period would begin on January
15, 2005, Spirit’s proposed startup date.  By Notice of Action Taken
dated March 11, 2005, in the above-captioned docket, the Department
granted the request of Spirit to waive the startup condition for Ft.
Lauderdale-Mexico City combination air transportation and extend the
startup deadline through December 15, 2005.  As a condition of granting
the waiver, the Department directed Spirit to notify the Department by
July 15, 2005, of its intent to use the designation on or before
December 15, 2005.

Application for Waiver of the Startup Condition:

On July 15, 2005, Spirit filed an application in the captioned docket
for a second waiver of the start-up condition, and asked that the
start-up deadline be extended for an additional period through June 15,
2006.  Spirit states that it is in the midst of its fleet refurbishment
process (replacing its MD-80 aircraft with new Airbus aircraft).  Spirit
anticipates commencing its Ft. Lauderdale-Mexico City service on or
about June 15, 2006.  Spirit notes that no party will be prejudiced by
approval of the application because no other carrier serves the Ft.
Lauderdale-Mexico City market. Spirit further notes that deferring the
proposed startup date will enable Spirit to commence its service at the
start of the peak travel season for Mexico City.

Applicant rep.: Anita M. Mosner<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

Disposition:

We have decided to grant the latest application filed by Spirit for a
waiver of the start-up deadline imposed in Docket OST-2004-19039, and
have further amended the start-up deadline through June 15, 2006, for
Ft. Lauderdale-Mexico City combination air transportation.  We find that
waiving the startup condition imposed on Spirit’s award would be in
the public interest in the circumstances presented; namely, that Spirit
has accelerated its retirement of its MD-80 aircraft and is working to
take delivery of new Airbus aircraft that it will use to serve the Ft.
Lauderdale-Mexico City market; that it is the only U.S. carrier
authorized to serve the Ft. Lauderdale-Mexico City market (leaving one
U.S. designation opportunity available in this market); and that no
party opposed its request for a waiver.

In taking this action, however, we remind Spirit that, as noted in the
first grant of a waiver of the startup condition in this docket, should
other U.S. carriers file applications for Ft. Lauderdale-Mexico City
authority, we reserve the right to reconsider our decision here to
determine whether or not that decision continues to be in the public
interest.  In addition, there should be no expectation that any
additional waiver request to further extend the start-up deadline will
be granted.  Spirit is advised that any future request to further extend
the startup deadline at issue here will have to be considered in light
of any specific new arguments offered and responses thereto, and in the
context of the circumstances present at that time, including whether
another carrier seeks to use the designation at issue.

The above action was effective when taken: September 15, 2005, through
June 15, 2006.

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy, and (2) grant of the request was consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

   Spirit’s extension of the start-up deadline is effective through
June 15, 2006, or until the date on which Spirit begins service in the
Ft. Lauderdale-Mexico City market, whichever occurs earlier.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1146-1148]
[FR Doc No: 2011-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Northeast Supply Diversification Project and Ellisburg to
Craigs Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

December 30, 2010.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company............  Docket No. CP11-30-000
Dominion Transmission, Inc................  Docket No. CP11-41-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of two related projects proposed by
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) and Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI). TGP's Northeast Supply Diversification Project would involve
construction and operation of facilities in Tioga and Bradford
Counties, Pennsylvania and in Niagara, Erie, and Livingston Counties,
New York. DTI's Ellisburg to Craigs Project would involve construction
and operation of facilities in Livingston and Wyoming Counties, New
York and Potter County, Pennsylvania. This EA will be used by the
Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the
projects are in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on January 31, 2011.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for these projects. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of these planned
projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the projects are approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be
determined in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice TGP and DTI provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Projects

    TGP proposes to construct and operate 6.8 miles of natural gas
pipeline loop,\1\ modifications at an existing meter station and
compressor station, and other appurtenant facilities. The Northeast
Supply Diversification Project would provide TGP with up to 150,000
dekatherms (Dth/d) per day of leased capacity from DTI. According to
TGP and DTI, their projects would increase natural gas delivery
capacity in the northeast region of the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is constructed parallel to an existing
pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Northeast Supply Diversification Project would consist of the
following facilities:
     6.8 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in
Tioga and Bradford Counties, Pennsylvania;
     Piping/valve modifications at existing Compressor Station
230C in Niagara County, New York;
     A new pig \2\ receiver at existing Compressor Station 317
in Bradford County, Pennsylvania;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Modifications at five existing meter stations in Erie and
Niagara Counties, New York; and
     Tap replacement at an existing interconnection between
TGP's 200 Line and DTI's pipeline system in Livingston County, New
York.
    DTI proposes to construct compression, metering, pipeline, and
pressure regulation facilities to provide the proposed leased capacity
to TGP. The Ellisburg to Craigs Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     A new 10,800 horsepower compressor station in Wyoming
County, New York;

     Replacement of 2,875 feet of 8-inch-diameter pipeline with
16-inch-diameter pipeline and a new meter station in Livingston County,
New York; and
     Construction of new pressure regulation facilities at
existing meter stations in Livingston County, New York and Potter
County, Pennsylvania.
    The general locations of the projects' facilities are shown in
appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    TGP's project would disturb approximately 111 acres of land for the
aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, about
51 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's
facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to
revert to former uses. The entire proposed pipeline route parallels
TGP's existing pipeline right-of-way.
    DTI's project would disturb approximately 38 acres of land for the
aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, about
11 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's
facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to
revert to former uses. The aboveground facilities would be constructed
adjacent to existing aboveground facilities owned by DTI. The pipeline
replacement would involve replacing the existing pipeline with a larger
diameter pipeline in the same right-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\4\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed projects under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations on how
to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposals relative
to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets
has expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating agency in
the preparation of the EA.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the projects
are further developed. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards,
compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for these projects will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the projects. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before January 31,
2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP11-30-000 and CP11-41-000) with
your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be

asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a
particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed projects.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP11-30 or CP11-41). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-46 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P