physically located in the docket, please consult the technical person
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Reference documents
identified with an AR are cross-indexed to non-regulatory, publicly
accessible information files maintained in the TSCA Nonconfidential
Information Center. Copies of these documents can be obtained as
described in ADDRESSES.
    1. Memo from Dr. Gregory Fritz (USEPA/OPPT/EETD) to Mary Begley
(USEPA/OPPT/CCD) re: Polymer Feedstocks Resulting in Excluded Polymers,
April 18, 2002.
    2. A. Remde and R. Debus, Biodegradability of Fluorinated
Surfactants Under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions, Chemosphere, 32(8),
1563-1574 (1996).
    3. (AR 226-0550) Fluorochemical Use, Distribution and Release
Overview. 3M. St. Paul, MN. May 26, 1999.
    4. (AR 226-1093) Seed, Jennifer. Hazard Assessment of
Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Its Salts-USEPA/EPA/RAD. Washington, DC.
November 4, 2002.
    5. Kudo, Naomi, et al. Comparison of the Elimination Between
Perfluorinated Fatty Acids with Different Carbon Chain Lengths in Rats.
Chemico-Biological Interactions. Vol. 134(2), pp. 203-216, 2001.
    6. Goeke-Flora, Carol M. and Nicholas V. Reo. Influence of Carbon
Chain Length on the Hepatic Effects of Perfluorinated Fatty Acids, A
\19\F- and \31\P-NMR Investigation. Chemical Research in Toxicology
9(4) pp. 689-695, 1996.
    7. (AR 226-1030a109) 3M, Fluorochemical Decompostion Processes -
April 4, 2001.
    8. (AR 226-1440) Hagen DF, Belisle J, Johnson JD, Venkateswarlu P.,
``Characterization of fluorinated metabolites by a gas chromatographic-
helium microwave plasma detector--the biotransformation of 1H, 1H, 2H,
2H-perfluorodecanol perfluorooctanoate.'' Analytical Biochemistry
118(2):336-343, 1981.
    9. (AR 226-1147) DuPont presentation to the Agency at the meeting
held on November 25, 2002.
    10. (AR 226-1281) Scott Mabury, PI; Interim Annual Report of
Activities for TRP Grant to University of Toronto; Project years: 1
September, 2001 to 1 September, 2002.
    11. (AR 226-1141) Presentation materials used by the Telomer
Research Group in a meeting with EPA on November 25, 2002.
    12. (AR 226-0620) Sulfonated Perfluorochemicals in the Environment:
Sources, Dispersion, Fate, and Effects. 3M. St. Paul, MN. March 1,
2000.
    13. (AR 226-0547) The Science of Organic Fluorochemistry. 3M. St.
Paul, MN. February 5, 1999.
    14. (AR 226-0548) Perfluorooctane Sulfonate: Current Summary of
Human Sera, Health and Toxicology Data. 3M. St. Paul, MN. January 21,
1999.
    15. (AR 226-0600) Weppner, William A. Phase-out Plan for PFOS-Based
Products. 3M. St. Paul, MN. July 7, 2000.
    16. The Use of Fluorochemical Surfactants in Floor Polish. David
Bultman and Myron Pike. 3M Company. http://home.hanmir.com/~hahnw/news/3m.html
.

    17. 3M Phasing Out Some of its Specialty Materials. 3M News. 3M.
St. Paul, MN. May 16, 2000.
    17a. Federal Register. (65 FR 62319, October 18, 2000) (FRL-6745-
5); (67 FR 11008; March 11, 2002) (FRL-6823-6); (67 FR 11014, March 11,
2002) (FRL-6823-7); (67 FR 72854, December 9, 2002) (FRL-7279-1).
    18. (OPPT-2003-0012-0012) Voluntary Actions to Evaluate and Control
Emissions of Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO). Letter to Stephen L.
Johnson from Society of Plastics Industry. March 14, 2003.
    18a. (AR 226-1094) The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.,
presentation to the EPA, Sanitized Copy. April 26, 2002.
    19. (AR 226-0043) Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile
for Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid and Various Salt Forms. 3M Company
submission to USEPA, dated April 27, 2000.
    20. (AR 226-0595) Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile
for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Salts. 3M Company submission to USEPA,
dated June 8, 2000.
    21. Nobuhiko Tsuda, Daikin Industries Ltd., ``Fluoropolymer
Emulsion for High-Performance Coatings'' in Paint and Coating Industry
Magazine, June 2001, p. 56-66.
    22. K. Petritis, et al. ``Ion-pair reversed-phase liquid
chromatography for determination of polar underivatized amino acids
using perfluorinated carboxylic acids as ion pairing agent'' in Journal
of Chromatography A, Vol. 833, 1999, pp. 147-155.
    23. Feiring, Andrew E. ``Fluoroplastics,'' in Organofluorine
Chemistry, Principles and Commercial Applications, edited by R.E. Banks
et al. Plenum Press, New York. 1994. pp. 339, 356.
    24. (AR 226-0938) EPA/Fluoropolymer Industry Meeting, Sept. 14,
2000; Teflon Today Online, http://www.Dupont.com/teflon, http://www
.gore.com.
    25. (AR 226-1140) Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Hazard Assessment of Perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS) and its Salts, ENV/JM/RD(2002)17/FINAL, Nov. 21, 2002.
    26. (AR 226-0599) Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile
Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) CAS Number: 3825-26-1. DuPont
submission to USEPA, dated June 23, 2000.
    27. Ellis D. A., S. A. Mabury, J. W. Martin and D. C. G. Muir 2001.
Thermolysis of fluoropolymers as a potential source of halogenated
organic acids in the environment. Nature: 412, pp. 321-324.
    28. (AR 226-1030a090) 3M Environmental Laboratory. 2001. Hydrolysis
Reactions of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Lab Request Number E00-
1851. March 30.

    29. (AR 226-1030a039) 3M Environmental Laboratory. 2001. Hydrolysis
Reactions of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Report Number W1878.
    30. Reiner, E.A. 1978. Fate of Fluorochemicals in the Environment.
Project Number<PHONE_NUMBER>. 3M Company, Environmental Laboratory. July
19.
    31. (AR 226-1030a038) D. Pace Analytical. 2001. The 18-Day Aerobic
Biodegradation Study of Perfluorooctanesulfonyl-Based Chemistries. 3M
Company Request, Contract Analytical Project ID: CA097, Minneapolis,
MN. February 23.
    32. (AR 226-0487) 3M Company. 1977. Ready Biodegradation of FC-143
(BOD/COD/TOC). Environmental Laboratory. St. Paul, MN.
    33. (AR 226-0492) 3M Company. 1980. Ready Biodegradation of FC-143
(BOD/COD) Lab Request No. 5625S. Environmental Laboratory. St. Paul,
MN.
    34. (AR 226-0494) 3M Company. 1985. Ready Biodegradation of FX-1001
(BOD/COD). Lab Request No. C1006. Environmental Laboratory. St. Paul,
MN.
    35. (AR 226-0495) Pace Analytical. 1997. Ready Biodegradation of
FC-126(BOD/COD). 3M Company Lab Request No. E1282. Minneapolis, MN. May
29.
    36. Springborn Laboratories. 2000. Biodegradation of
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) I. Study  290.6120, II.Study
 290.6120, III. Study  290.6120, IV. Pure Culture
Study. Study  290.6120. Submitted to the 3M Environmental
Laboratory.
    37. (AR 226-0490) Todd, J.W. 1979. FC-143 Photolysis Study Using
Simulated Sunlight. Project<PHONE_NUMBER>, 3M. Company Technical Report
No. 002. February 2.
    38. (AR 226-1030a091) Hatfield, T. 2001. Screening Studies on the
Aqueous Photolytic Degradation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). 3M
Environmental Laboratory. Lab request number E00-2192. St. Paul, MN.
    39. (AR 226-0488) Boyd, S. 1993. Review of Technical Report
Summary: Adsorption of FC 95 and FC 143 in Soil. Michigan State
University. May 19.
    40. Boyd, S.A. 1993. Review of Technical Notebook. Soil Thin Layer
Chromatography. Number 48277, p 30. Michigan State University.
    41. (AR 226-1030a030) 3M Environmental Laboratory. 2000. Soil
Adsorption/Desorption Study of Potassium Perfluorooctanesulfonate
(PFOS). Lab Report Number E00-1311.
    42. (OPPT-2003-0012-0401) Adsorption/desorption of Ammonium
Perfluorooctanoate to soil (OECD 106). April 17, 2003. Association of
Plastics Manufacturers in Europe/DuPont.
    43. Bidleman, T.F. 1988. Atmospheric Processes: Wet and Dry
Deposition of Organic Compounds are Controlled by their Vapor-Particle
Partitioning. Environmental Science and Technology 22(4), pp. 361-367.
    44. Vraspir, G.A., Mendel, Arthur. 1979. Analysis for
fluorochemicals in Bluegill Fish. Project 99706 12600: Fate of
Fluorochemicals. 3M Technical Report Number 14. May 1.
    45. (AR 226-1053) EPA/Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI)
Fluoropolymers Manufacturers Group (FMG) meeting, January 30, 2002.
    46. (AR 226-0496) 3M Environmental Laboratory. Howell, R.D.,
Johnson, J.D., Drake, J.B, Youngbloom, R.D. 1995. Assessment of the
Bioaccumulative Properties of Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: Static. 3M
Technical Report. May 31.
    47. (AR 226-1149) 3M, Biodegradation screen studies for telomer
type alcohols Nov. 6, 2002
    48. (AR 226-1262) DuPont Executive Summary--Biodegradation
Screening Studies of 8-2 Telomer B Alcohol 03/20/03.
    49. (AR 226-1062) Martin, Jonathan W., Muir, Derek C., Moody,
Cheryl A., Ellis, David A., Kwan, Wai Chi, Solomon, Keith R., Mabury,
Scott A., ``Collection of Airborne Fluorinated Organics and Analysis by
Gas Chromatography/Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry.'' Analytical
Chemistry, 74: 584-590, 2002.
    50. (AR 226-1033) DuPont Telomer Research Program Update and Status
Report--February 21, 2001.
    51. (AR 226-1258) TRP (DuPont), Letter of Intent (LOI) for the
Telomer Research Program - Appendix 1 Submission March 14, 2003.
    52. U.S. EPA. ``Health and Safety Data Reporting; Submission of
Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies,'' EPA ICR
0574.12, OMB No. 2070-0012, August 2003.
    53. U.S. EPA. Memo from Dr. Gregory Fritz (USEPA/OPPT/EETD) to Mary
Begley (USEPA/OPPT/CCD) re: Polymer Exemption Rule Amendment, November
21, 2001.
    54. U.S. EPA. ``Economic Analysis of the Amendment of the Polymer
Exemption Rule To Exclude Certain Perfluorinated Polymers,'' Wendy
Hoffman (USEPA/OPPT/EETD), August 12, 2005.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has designated this proposed rule as a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of the Executive Order because
it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order. This action was therefore submitted to OMB for
review under this Executive Order, and any changes to this document
made at the suggestion of OMB have been documented in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
    EPA has prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts of
this proposed revision to the polymer exemption rule. This economic
analysis (Ref. 54) is available in the public docket for this action
and is briefly summarized in Unit VIII.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements related to the submission
of PMNs are already approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. That
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been assigned EPA ICR
number 0574.12 and OMB control number 2070-0012. This proposed rule
does not impose any new requirements that require additional OMB
approval.
    Under the PRA, ``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
burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search
existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and
complete, review, and submit the required PMN, and maintain the
required records.
    Based on the estimated burden in the existing ICR, if an entity
were to submit a PMN to the Agency, the annual reporting burden is
estimated to average between 95 and 114 hours per response, with an
midpoint respondent burden of 107 hours. This estimate was adjusted to
account for the elimination of the existing burden related to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the polymer exemption rule,
which is estimated to impose a burden on industry of six hours per
chemical, i.e., two hours for reporting, and four hours for
recordkeeping. The

net paperwork burden for submitting a PMN as a result of this proposed
amendment is therefore estimated to be 101 hours per PMN submission.
The burden hour cost for this proposed rule is estimated to be $4,459.
In addition, PMN submissions must be accompanied by a user fee of
$2,500 (set at $100 for small businesses with annuals sales of less
than $40 million).
    Based on the high-end assumption of 12 PMN submissions annually,
the annual burden is estimated to be 1,212 hours (12 x 101 hours). The
one-time burden for the companies that submit PMNs for chemicals
already in production is estimated to be a maximum of 12,120 hours (120
chemicals x 101 hours per submission).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to an information collection request subject to the PRA
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR, after appearing in the
preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on
any related collection instrument (e.g., on the form or survey).
    Submit any comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated
collection techniques, along with your comments on the proposed rule as
instructed under ADDRESSES. The Agency will consider any comments
related to the information collection requirements contained in this
proposal as it develops a final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as:
     A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 based on the
applicable NAICS code for the business sector impacted.
     A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000.
     A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
    The regulated community does not include any small governmental
jurisdictions or small not-for-profit organizations. For small
businesses, the Agency assessed the impacts on small chemical
manufacturers in NAICS codes 325 and 324110. The SBA size standards for
sectors under NAICS 325 range from 500 to 1,000 employees or fewer in
order to be classified as small. The size standard for NAICS code
324110, petroleum refineries, is 1,500 employees.
    Based on estimates of the number of PMNs expected to be submitted
as a result of this action, it appears that 12 or fewer businesses
would be affected per year. The five companies that manufacture the
majority of the volume of chemicals that will be affected by the
polymer exemption rule belong to either or both of the Fluoropolymer
Manufacturers Group, and the Telomer Research Program. These two
groups, which have no other members beyond the five companies, are
negotiating enforceable consent agreements and other voluntary testing
arrangements with the Agency for testing specific chemicals that would
be affected by the polymer exemption rule. The two groups have told the
Agency that their member companies manufacture the majority of the
volume of chemicals that would be affected by the rule. None of these
five companies meet the definition of small under the Small Business
Administration employee size criteria. The remaining volume of
chemicals that could be affected by the rule is low enough so that even
if a small company were to be affected, a significant number of
businesses would not be affected, nor would any individual small
business experience significant impacts. In addition to the estimated
impact of having to submit a PMN (see estimates in Unit VIII.), small
businesses with less than $40 million in annual sales are entitled to a
reduced user fee of $100 for submitting a PMN, rather than the $2,500
user fee, which would further reduce any impacts of the rule on small
businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Based on EPA's experience with past PMNs, State, local, and tribal
governments have not been affected by this reporting requirement, and
EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or
tribal government will be affected by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has
determined that this regulatory action does not impose any enforceable
duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on
small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203,
204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public
Law 104-4).

E. Federalism

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not have ``federalism implications,'' because it will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this proposed rule.

F. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal
implications because it will not have any affect on tribal governments,
on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) does not apply to this proposed rule because this action is not
designated as an ``economically significant'' regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866, nor does it establish an
environmental standard, or otherwise have a disproportionate effect on
children.

H. Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because
it is not designated as an ``economically significant'' regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866, nor is it likely to have
any significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not
impose any technical standards that would require EPA to consider any
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Environmental Justice

    This proposed rule does not have an adverse impact on the
environmental and health conditions in low-income and minority
communities. Therefore, under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency does
not need to consider environmental justice-related issues.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 723

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 8, 2006.
Susan B. Hazen,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics
Substances.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 723 be amended as
follows:

PART 723--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 723 would continue to read as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604.

    2. Section 723.250 is amended as follows:
    a. By adding several definitions in alphabetical order to paragraph
(b).
    b. By adding a paragraph (d)(6).

Sec.  723.250  Polymers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Fluorotelomers means the products of telomerization, the reaction
of a telogen (such as pentafluoroethyl iodide) with an ethylenic
compound (such as tetrafluoroethylene) to form low molecular weight
polymeric compounds, which contain an array of saturated carbon atoms
covalently bonded to each other (C-C bonds) and to fluorine atoms (C-F
bonds). This array is predominantly a straight chain, and depending on
the telogen used produces a compound having an even number of carbon
atoms. However, the carbon chain length of the fluorotelomer varies
widely. The perfluoroalkyl groups formed by this process are usually,
but do not have to be, connected to the polymer through a
functionalized ethylene group as indicated by the following structural
diagram: (Rf-CH2-CH2-Anything).
    Perfluororalkyl carboxylate (PFAC) means a group of saturated
carbon atoms covalently bonded to each other in a linear, branched, or
cyclic array and covalently bonded to a carbonyl moiety and where all
carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds have been replaced with carbon-fluorine (C-
F) bonds. The carbonyl moiety is also covalently bonded to a hetero
atom, typically, but not necessarily oxygen (O) or nitrogen (N).
    Perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) means a group of saturated carbon
atoms covalently bonded to each other in a linear, branched, or cyclic
array and covalently bonded to a sulfonyl moiety and where all carbon -
hydrogen (C-H) bonds have been replaced with carbon - fluorine (C-F)
bonds. The sulfonyl moiety is also covalently bonded to a hetero atom,
typically, but not necessarily oxygen (O) or nitrogen (N).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Polymers which contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length. After [insert date 1 year
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] a
polymer cannot be manufactured under this section if the polymer
contains as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities,
one or more of the following perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a
CF3- or longer chain length: Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS),
perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFAC), fluorotelomers, or perfluoroalkyl
moieties that are covalently bound to either a carbon or sulfur atom
where the carbon or sulfur atom is an integral part of the polymer
molecule.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section, any
polymer that is subject to paragraph (d)(6) of this section and that
has been manufactured prior to [insert date 1 year after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] may no longer be
manufactured after [insert date 1 year after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register] unless that polymer has undergone a
premanufacture review in accordance with section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA and
40 CFR part 720.
    (ii) Paragraph (d)(6) of this section does not apply to polymers
which are already on the list of chemical substances manufactured or
processed in the United States that EPA compiles and keeps current
under section 8(b) of TSCA.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-2152 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46986]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM12-3-000]

Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process;
Availability of Draft XML Schema

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is making available
on its Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) a draft of the XML schema that is
being developed for use in filing Electric Quarterly Reports as
proposed in the Commission's June 21, 2012 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 77 FR 39447 (July 3, 2012). Please refer to the
Supplementary Information Section below for details.

DATES: The draft XML Schema is now available at the links mentioned
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Switzer, Office of the
General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St.
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Take notice that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is making available on its Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) a draft of the XML schema that is being developed for use
in filing Electric Quarterly Reports as proposed in the Commission's
June 21, 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The XML schema is still in
development, but is being made available as a draft so that interested
parties may view the XML schema prior to submitting comments on the
proposed rule. The link to the XML schema can be found at both the
Events Calendar Web page at, http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=6411&CalType=&CalendarID=116&Date=&View=Listview,
and on the main EQR Web page at, http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eqr.asp.

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19106 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5185-5186]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00965]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10016-81-Region 3]

Delegation of Authority to the State of West Virginia To
Implement and Enforce Additional or Revised National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards and New Source Performance
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: On October 8, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
sent the State of West Virginia (West Virginia) a letter acknowledging
that West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce
the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
and New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) had been updated, as provided for under
previously approved delegation mechanisms. To inform regulated
facilities and the public, EPA is making available a copy of EPA's
letter to West Virginia through this notice.

DATES: On October 8, 2020, EPA sent West Virginia a letter
acknowledging that West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement
and enforce Federal NESHAPs and NSPS had been updated.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents pertaining to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Copies of West
Virginia's submittal are also available at the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street
SE, Charleston, WV 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Riley Burger, Permits Branch (3AD10),
Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is
(215) 814-2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6, 2019, West Virginia notified EPA
that West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of
Federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 60, 61, and 63
as of June 1, 2018. On June 3, 2020, West Virginia notified EPA that
West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of Federal
NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in Title 40 of
the CFR, parts 60, 61, and 63 as of June 1, 2019. On October 8, 2020,
EPA sent West Virginia a letter acknowledging that West Virginia now
has the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS as
specified by West Virginia in its notices to EPA, as provided for under
previously approved automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications,
applications, reports, and other correspondence required pursuant to
the delegated NESHAP and NSPS must be submitted to both EPA Region III
and to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, unless
the delegated standard specifically provides that such submittals may
be sent to EPA or a delegated State. In such cases, the submittals
should be sent only to the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection. A copy of EPA's October 8, 2020 letter to West Virginia
follows:

Mr. Laura M. Crowder, Director
Division of Air Quality
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, West Virginia 25304

Dear Ms. Crowder:

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
previously delegated to the State of West Virginia the authority to
implement and enforce various federal National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), which are found at 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. In
those actions EPA also delegated to West Virginia the authority to
implement and enforce any future EPA NESHAP or NSPS on the condition
that West Virginia legally adopt the future standards, make only
allowed wording changes, and provide specified notice to EPA.
    In a letter dated May 6, 2019, West Virginia informed EPA that
West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of federal
NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards as found in 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63 as of June 1, 2018. In a letter dated June 3,
2020, West Virginia informed EPA that West Virginia had updated its
incorporation by reference of federal NESHAP and NSPS to include
many such standards as found in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 as of
June 1, 2019. West Virginia noted in both letters that it understood
it was automatically delegated the authority to implement these
standards. West Virginia committed to enforcing the standards in
conformance with the terms of EPA's previous delegations of
authority. West Virginia made only allowed wording changes.
    West Virginia provided copies of the revised West Virginia
Legislative Rules which specify the NESHAP and NSPS which West
Virginia has adopted by reference. These revised Legislative Rules
are entitled 45 CSR 34--``Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants,'' and 45 CSR 16--``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources.'' These revised Rules have an effective date of
June 1, 2019 for the 2019 letter and June 1, 2020 for the 2020
letter.
    Accordingly, EPA acknowledges that West Virginia now has the
authority, as provided for under the terms of EPA's previous
delegation actions, to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS
standards which West Virginia adopted by reference in West
Virginia's revised Legislative Rules 45 CSR 34 and 45 CSR 16, as
effective on June 1, 2019 and subsequently on June 1, 2020.
    Please note that on December 19, 2008 in Sierra Club vs. EPA,\1\
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated certain provisions of the General Provisions of 40
CFR part 63 relating to exemptions for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM). On October 16, 2009, the Court issued the mandate
vacating these SSM exemption provisions, which are found at 40 CFR
part 63, 63.6(f)(1), and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3rd 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources to use the SSM
exemption as provided for in the vacated provisions at 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1), and (h)(1), even though EPA has not yet formally removed
the SSM exemption provisions from the General Provisions of 40 CFR
part 63. Because West Virginia incorporated 40 CFR part 63 by
reference, West Virginia should also no longer allow sources to use
the former SSM exemption from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part
63 due to the Court's ruling in Sierra Club vs. EPA.
    EPA appreciates West Virginia's continuing NESHAP and NSPS
enforcement efforts, and also West Virginia's decision to take
automatic delegation of additional and more recent NESHAP and NSPS
by adopting them by reference.

    If you have any questions, please contact me or Ms. Mary Cate
Opila, Chief, Permits Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

Cristina Fernandez, Director
Air and Radiation Division
EPA Region III

    This notice acknowledges the updates of West Virginia's delegation
of authority to implement and enforce NESHAP and NSPS.

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
Cristina Fernandez,
Director, Air & Radiation Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-00965 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4688]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff will attend the following
meeting related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
(MISO)--PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market
Initiative (Docket No. AD14-3-000):
MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting--January 24, 2014
    The above-referenced meeting will be held at:
PJM Interconnection Conference & Training Center, 2750 Monroe Blvd.,
Audubon, PA 19403
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. EL13-47, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and Allegheny Energy
Supply Company, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-503, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-876, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-862, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-2233, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-381, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    For more information, contact Mary Cain, Office of Energy Policy
and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 22, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01653 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 45801-45802]
[DOCID:fr15au07-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. ER07-1105-000, and ER07-1105-001]

Cedar Creek Wind Holdings, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

 August 8, 2007.
    Cedar Creek Wind Holdings, LLC (Cedar Creek) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule.
The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy
and capacity at market-based rates. Cedar

Creek also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Cedar Creek requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Cedar Creek.
    On August 8, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Cedar Creek, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
September 7, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Cedar Creek is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Cedar Creek, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Cedar Creek's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15905 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 8726]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-65-001]

EasTrans, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 4, 2011, EasTrans, LLC (EasTrans)
filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) reflecting
minor changes to the eTariff information on the cover page originally
filed on July 22, 2010.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 15, 2011.

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3309 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 6, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN –

DOCKET OST-2005-20581

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

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  North American Airlines, Inc.  filed   3/7/05 for:

XX Exemption for two years pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between points in the United States via intermediate points to points in
Ghana and beyond.

XX  Allocation of seven round-trip U.S.-Ghana frequencies to operate its
proposed services.

Continental Airlines filed an answer and North American filed a reply.
Continental states that it has no objection to the application provided
that the Department grants Continental’s pending request for Ghana
exemption authority and seven frequencies contemporaneously with North
American’s application.  In its reply, North American states that it
has no objection to a contemporaneous grant of Ghana authority to
Continental.

Applicant rep: David M. Kirstein<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Michael
D. Bodman<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (See below).

The above action with respect to North American’s exemption authority
was effective when taken:  April 6, 2005, through April 6, 2007.

The above action with respect to North American’s allocation of seven
frequencies was effective when taken:

April 6, 2005, through March 31, 2006.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Ghana.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Remarks:  With respect to Continental’s comments, we are
contemporaneously granting Continental’s request for Ghana exemption
authority and seven weekly frequencies by separate notice in Docket
OST-2005-20523.

The U.S.-Ghana Open-Skies Agreement includes a transitional limitation,
through March 31, 2006, of 21 scheduled roundtrip weekly combination
frequencies for U.S. carriers using their own aircraft.  Based on our
action here and the contemporaneous granting of Continental’s Ghana
application in Docket-2005-20523, 14 of the 21 frequencies are now
allocated to North American (7) and Continental (7).  The remaining
seven frequencies are unallocated.

Conditions:  The exemption authority granted to serve intermediate
points is limited to countries with which the United States has signed
open-skies agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds
authority to serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the
Department, and for which it holds route integration authority, by
virtue of either the present action or other action of the Department,
and is subject to all conditions attached to that authority.

The frequency allocation is subject to the condition that if any of the
frequencies are not used for a period of 90 days, the allocation as to
each of those frequencies will expire automatically and the unused
frequencies will revert to the Department for reallocation.  The
dormancy condition will begin on the date of this Notice.  The
frequencies allocated here are for weekly operations.  A scheduled
carrier may not bank frequencies from one week to the next.

___________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  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

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

Initially, North American intends to commence service between New York
and Accra, Ghana.  It plans to commence operations on or about April 15,
2005.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50768]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0767]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge
across Hood Canal (Admiralty Inlet), mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA.
This deviation allows the bridge to open the draw span half-way, 300
feet; as opposed to all the way, which is 600 feet. One half of the
span will remain closed, allowing for the replacements of bridge
anchors for this section of the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 27, 2015,
until 7 p.m. on September 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0767] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) has requested that the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge only open
half of the span to facilitate safe and uninterrupted bridge anchor
replacements. The Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge crosses Hood Canal,
mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. The bridge has two fixed spans (East
and West), and one draw span (Main). The East span provides 50 feet of
vertical clearance, and the West span provides 35 feet of vertical
clearance. The Main span provides zero feet of vertical clearance in
the closed-to-navigation position, and unlimited vertical clearance in
the open-to-navigation position. Vertical clearances are referenced to
mean high-water elevation.
    The deviation period allows the draw span of the Hood Canal
Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal, mile 5.0, to open half-way from
6 a.m. on August 27, 2015 until 7 p.m. on September 30, 2015.
    During the time of the deviation, the drawbridge will not be able
to operate according to the normal operating schedule. The normal
operating schedule for the bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR
117.1045, which allows, with at least one hour's notice, on signal, for
the draw to open horizontally for 300 feet unless the maximum opening
of 600 feet is requested; and need not open for vessel traffic from 3
p.m. to 6:15 p.m. daily from 3 p.m. on May 22 to 6:16 p.m. on September
30. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1045 at all
other times. Waterway usage on this part of Hood Canal includes vessels
ranging from commercial tug and barge to U.S. Navy vessels, and vessels
attending the missions of the U.S. Navy to small pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass through the East and West spans may do so at
anytime. The Main span does not provide passage in the closed-to-
navigation position. The bridge will be able to open half the Main span
for Navy vessels during emergencies, when requested by the Department
of the Navy. The Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge has two immediate
alternate spans for vessels to pass (East span and West span). The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 11, 2015.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-20671 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28985-28987]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11570]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72163; File No. SR-ISE-2014-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

May 14, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, \2\ notice is hereby
given that on May 2, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to introduce a new
Market Maker Plus rebate for Market Makers that quote certain symbols
in size, and to update the definition of Mini Option to reflect the
recent Google stock split. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees to introduce a new Market Maker Plus rebate for Market Makers that
quote certain symbols in size, and to update the definition of Mini
Option to reflect the recent Google stock split. The fee changes
discussed apply to both Standard Options and Mini Options traded on the
Exchange. The Exchange's Schedule of Fees has separate tables for fees
applicable to Standard Options and Mini Options. The Exchange notes
that while the discussion below relates to fees for Standard Options,
the fees for Mini Options, which are not discussed below, are and shall
continue to be 1/10th of the fees for Standard Options.
1. Market Maker Plus: BAC, SPY, IWM
    In order to promote and encourage liquidity in symbols that are in
the penny pilot program (``Select Symbols''), the Exchange currently
offers Market Makers \3\ who meet the quoting requirements for Market
Maker Plus \4\ a rebate of $0.20 per contract for adding liquidity in
those symbols. In addition, the Exchange pays a higher rebate of $0.22
per contract to Market Makers who meet the quoting requirements for
Market Maker Plus and are affiliated with an Electronic Access Member
(``EAM'') that executes a total affiliated Priority Customer \5\
average daily volume (``ADV'') of 200,000 contracts or more in a
calendar month. The Exchange now proposes to introduce an additional
higher Market Maker Plus rebate for members that meet specified
quotation size requirements on a trade by trade basis in three actively
traded Select Symbols: Bank of America Corp (``BAC''), SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Trust (``SPY''), and the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (``IWM'').\6\ In
particular, Market Makers who qualify as Market Maker Plus in BAC, SPY,
and IWM will earn a rebate of $0.25 per contract if at the time of the
trade their displayed quantity, \7\ in the traded series, \8\ is at
least 1,000 contracts.\9\ Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus
will continue to receive the current rebate amounts when the Market
Maker does not have a displayed size of 1,000 contracts or more at the
time of the trade. If a Market Maker that qualifies for the $0.22 per
contract Market Maker Plus rebate based on total affiliated Priority
Customer ADV also qualifies for the new rebate that Market Maker will
receive the higher $0.25 per contract rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \4\ A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is on the National
Best Bid or National Best Offer at least 80% of the time for series
trading between $0.03 and $3.00 (for options whose underlying
stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less than or
equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $3.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
greater than $100) in premium in each of the front two expiration
months. A Market Maker's single best and single worst quoting days
each month based on the front two expiration months, on a per symbol
basis, will be excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker
qualifies for this rebate, if doing so will qualify a Market Maker
for the rebate.
    \5\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
    \6\ The new rebate will only apply to Mini Options on SPY as the
ISE does not offer Mini Options on BAC or IWM.
    \7\ There is no trade quantity minimum.
    \8\ There is no requirement that the Market Maker maintain a
quote size of 1,000 contracts in all series in order to qualify for
the higher rebate.
    \9\ 1,000 contract size requirement applies to both Standard
Options and Mini Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Mini Option Definition: Google Stock Split
    The ISE recently amended Supplementary Material .13 to Rule 504,
listing standards for Mini Options, to enable the continued trading of
Mini Options on Google Class A shares, which were assigned a new
symbol, ``GOOGL'', in connection with Google's recent stock split.\10\
The Exchange now proposes to similarly update the definition of ``Mini
Option'' in its Schedule of Fees to indicate that Mini Options include
options overlying ten shares of ``GOOGL''. As proposed, ``Mini
Options'' are options overlying ten (10) shares of AAPL, AMZN, GLD,
GOOGL and SPY.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71932 (April 11,
2014), 79 FR 21816 (April 17, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-21).
    \11\ For purposes of the Schedule of Fees, AAPL, AMZN, GLD and
SPY are Select Symbols and GOOGL is a Non-Select Symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, \13\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Market Maker Plus: BAC, SPY, IWM
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to introduce a higher Market Maker Plus rebate
for Market Makers that meet the specified quotation size requirements
in BAC, SPY, and IWM as the higher rebates will encourage Market Makers
to post deep markets in these actively traded symbols, which will
benefit all market participants that trade on the ISE. The Market Maker
Plus rebate is competitive with incentives provided by other exchanges,
and has proven to be an effective incentive for Market Makers to
provide liquidity in Select Symbols. The Exchange believes that the new
rebate will similarly be effective in encouraging Market Makers to post
tighter markets, in size, in BAC, SPY, and IWM. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that the new Market Maker Plus rebate for these
symbols is not unfairly discriminatory because all Market Makers can
achieve the new higher rebate by satisfying the current quoting
requirements and maintaining quotes of 1,000 contracts or more (at the
time of the trade) in these symbols.

2. Mini Option Definition: Google Stock Split

    As part of Google's recent stock split, the symbol ``GOOG'' was
assigned to the new Google Class C shares, while Google Class A shares
were assigned the symbol ``GOOGL''. The Exchange recently updated its
Mini Options rules to clarify that it will continue listing Mini
Options on the Google Class A shares, i.e., GOOGL, and believes that it
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to update the
definition of ``Mini Option'' in the Schedule of Fees in order to
eliminate investor confusion about which options classes are tradable
as Mini Options on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it has determined to charge fees and
provide rebates in Mini Options at a rate that is 1/10th the rate of
fees and rebates the Exchange provides for trading in Standard Options.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees and rebates to provide market
participants an incentive to trade Mini Options on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes the proposed fees and rebates are reasonable and
equitable in light of the fact that Mini Options have a smaller
exercise and assignment value, specifically 1/10th that of a standard
option contract, and, as such, is providing fees and rebates for Mini

Options that are 1/10th of those applicable to Standard Options.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, \14\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive
as it provides an additional incentive for Market Makers to make deep
markets in three actively traded Select Symbols, which will benefit all
market participants that trade on the ISE. In addition, the proposed
change to the definition of Mini Option is a technical change that will
have no competitive impact. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \15\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder, \16\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2014-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-27 and should be
submitted by June 10, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11570 Filed 5-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19116]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 28, 2015.

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier. Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302. 201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0064.
    Date Filed: March 25, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: April 15, 2015.
    Description: Application of Altius Aviation, LLC requesting
authority to operate scheduled passenger service as a commuter air
carrier.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0065.
    Date Filed: March 26, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: April 16, 2015.
    Description: Application of Air Baltic Corporation A/S
(``AirBaltic'') requesting a foreign air carrier permit to authorize
foreign air transportation to engage in: (i) Foreign scheduled and
charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point
or points behind any Member State of the European Union, via any point
or points in any Member State and via intermediate points, to any point
or points in the United States and beyond; (ii) foreign scheduled and
charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any
point or points in the United States and any point or points in any
member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) foreign scheduled
and charter air transportation of cargo between any point or points in
the United States and any other point or points; (iv) other charters
pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (v) transportation
authorized by any additional route rights made available to European
Union carriers under the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement in the future.
AirBaltic also requests an exemption to the extent necessary to allow
it to provide the services described above for a two-year period or
until the requested permit authority becomes effective, whichever
occurs first.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-1999-6663 and DOT-OST-2011-0076.
    Date Filed: March 24, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: April 14, 2015.
    Description: Application of United Parcel Service Co. requesting an
amendment of its U.S.-Mexico certificate of public convenience and
necessity and a related exemption, as well as a designation under the
U.S.-Mexico Air Transport Agreement authorizing it to provide scheduled
foreign air transportation of property and mail between Dallas, Texas
(DFW) and Mexico City, Mexico (MEX).

 Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-08147 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND REFERENCES PRELIMINARY NOx CONTROLS COST ESTIMATES FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS By Sikander Khan Environmental Engineer, U. S. EPA OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2003 Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 2 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR NOx CONTROLS INDUSTRIAL BOILERS 1.0 METHODOLOGY The cost estimates covered in this report were developed as part of the investigations conducted for the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule ( IAQR) for industrial boilers. These costs are preliminary and are being reviewed further by the EPA.

The costs were developed for three boiler sizes, with heat inputs of 100, 250, and 1,000 MMBtu/ hr. The following NOx control technologies were included in these estimates for coal, natural gas, and oil fired boilers ( except as noted below):

Low NOx burner ( LNB) Overfire air ( OFA) Gas recirculation ( GR) ( only for gas and oil fired boilers) SCR SNCR It is to be noted that the purpose of this evaluation was to develop cost information for a large range of industrial boiler sizes and associated NOx control technologies. The decision on the use of this information in the proposed IAQR will be made as part of the Rule itself.

The methodology can be divided into two major activities: 1) Developing design basis for each NOx control system and determining its operating impacts on the boiler performance and 2) determining capital and operating costs associated with retrofitting the NOx control system. These two activities, along with the associated assumptions and references, are described below.

2.0 DESIGN BASIS AND PERFORMANCE IMPACTS Combustion and boiler efficiency calculations were performed using standard procedures( 1,2), for the three boiler sizes of 100, 250, and 1,000 MMBtu/ hr. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the key data determined from these calculations for the three boilers firing coal, oil, and gas. In addition, the average uncontrolled, baseline NOx levels for these boilers were established as follows ( see Attachments 1 and 2):

1. Coal fired boilers ( bituminous and sub bituminous coals): 0.72 lb/ MMBtu 2. Gas fired boilers: 0.25 lb/ MMBtu 3. Oil fired boilers: 0.22 lb/ MMBtu The above NOx levels are mainly based on the ICI database. Based on a further clarification provided by ICF( 3), the NOx levels provided in Attachment 1 for oil firing do Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 3 not represent the maximum levels reported in the ICI database. Therefore, the costs were calculated for two additional baseline NOx levels of 0.36 and 0.5 lb/ MMBtu. ICF indicated that these costs would be applied selectively to the oil fired boilers with the reported baseline levels around these two high values.

The above information was used to determine the NOx reduction levels and the boiler performance impacts, as described below separately for each type of control technology:

2.1 LNB, OFA, and GR The NOx reduction levels achievable with LNB, OFA, and GR technologies for different fuels are summarized in Table 3, along with the supporting references. The following assumptions and criteria were used to establish the impacts of these technologies on the plant performance:

1. With the use of OFA on coal firing, the unburned carbon level at the boiler outlet increases by 50 percent. This increase in the unburned carbon level reduces the boiler efficiency and results in an increased coal consumption and auxiliary power consumption associated with the draft fans.

2. The GR systems for the gas and oil fired boilers are designed for a recirculation rate of 20 percent. For full load operation, a gas recirculation rate of 15 percent is used to estimate the fan power consumption requirement.

3. LNB and OFA do not result in a change in the gas and oil fired boiler efficiencies. In general, the gas recirculation does not have a substantial impact on the heat transfer within the boiler and the original steam temperatures can be maintained. It is recognized that some boiler would require modification of the heating surfaces for these temperatures.

The plant performance impacts associated with the use of LNB, OFA, and GR are summarized in Table 4. These impacts were used for the estimation of operating resulting from the use of these technologies.

2.2 SCR The SCR technology is considered applicable to all three fuel ( coal, gas, and oil) applications. A conservative NOx reduction effectiveness of 80 percent was selected for this estimating effort. The following assumptions and criteria were used to establish the SCR design parameters and the impacts on the plant performance:

1. The methodology described in Attachment 5 was used to estimate the catalyst volumes for various boiler applications. The space velocities ( 1/ hr) used were 3,750 for coal, 16,800 for gas, and 11,800 for oil. The ammonia slip levels used were 5 ppm for coal and oil and 10 ppm for gas. Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 4 2. The reagent was assumed to be anhydrous ammonia with electrical heating for vaporization.

3. The pressure drop through the SCR reactor and additional ductwork was assumed to be 6 in. wt.

4. Catalyst replacement requirement was based on a very conservative assumption of 1/ 3rd of the catalyst being replaced every year. There is substantial industry information available that the average catalyst life span, especially with catalyst management schemes, is substantially more than the 3 years assumed for these estimates ( see Attachment 6).

The above assumptions were used to determine the impacts of the use of SCR on plant performance, which are summarized in Table 5.

2.3 SNCR The cost estimates have been developed for SNCR systems for all three fuel applications. However, it is recognized that SNCR technology may not, in general, be effective for small, shop assembled gas and oil fired boilers ( the physical constraints associated with such boilers may not permit proper location of the SNCR reagent injection nozzles).

The SNCR system design and boiler performance impacts have been estimated, based on the methodology provided in an EPRI report( 4). Additional assumptions and criteria used are as follows:

1. A NOx reduction effectiveness of 40 percent was used for all boiler cases. Attachment 7 lists information on many SNCR installations, especially for the smaller boiler sizes, which supports the 40 percent effectiveness level selected for this study.

2. The reagent was assumed to be urea.

3. Because of the injection of water within the boiler, as part of the SNCR process, there will be a reduction in boiler efficiency. This reduction will result in increased fuel consumption and ash generation, as applicable( 4).

Table 6 summarizes the plant performance impacts resulting from the use of SNCR.

3.0 CAPITAL AND LEVELIZED COSTS The capital costs ($/ MMBtu/ hr) for the application of the NOx control technologies for various boiler sizes included in this evaluation were based on recent industry data( 5) and Attachments 3 and 5. In general, these costs were identified for one boiler size and then scaling factors were used to project these costs for other boiler sizes. The costs are based on 1999 dollars. Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 5 The levelized costs ($/ ton of NOx removed) were calculated using the estimates of the capital costs and increased consumable rates associated with each technology, as shown in Tables 4 through 7. The economic factors used in these calculations( 5 9) were as follows:

Anhydrous ammonia, $/ ton 260 Urea, $/ gal 0.95 Water, $/ gal 0.0006 Bituminous coal, $/ MMBtu 1.45 Sub bituminous coal, $/ MMBtu 1.20 Oil, $/ MMBtu 3.5 Gas, $/ MMBtu 5.0 Power, mills/ kwh 25.0 Solid waste disposal, $/ ton 12 Operator cost, $/ hr 30 SCR catalyst, $/ cu. ft. 396 Useful life, years 30 Carrying charges, % 12.00 Levelization factor 1.0 Maintenance cost (% of capital cost) 1.5 A US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis( 10), price index was used to adjust cost basis from one year to another. The levelized costs for various technology retrofits are presented in Table 8.

3.1 Sensitivity Cases Two sensitivity cases were evaluated to see the effect of changes in the study assumptions on the technology costs: 1) increased cost of power from 25 mills/ kwh to 50 mills/ kwh and 2) an increase of 25 percent in the SCR capital cost. Only a few retrofit options were evaluated to see the impact of these changes   the impact on other options will be similar. Table 9 presents the results. A comparison of Table 9 and corresponding values in Table 8 shows that:

1. Increase in the cost of power has virtually no impact on the LNB/ OFA option, since the increase in power consumption for this option is quite small.

2. Increase in the cost of power has a relatively small impact on the SCR option. This impact ranges from approximately 0.8 to 6.8 percent of the total cost in $/ ton of NOx removed.

3. Increase in the capital cost of SCR results in an increase of approximately 13 to 19 percent in the total cost in $/ ton of NOx removed. It is to be noted that, with a 25 percent increase in capital cost, the levelized cost remains around $ 2000 per ton of NOx removed for boilers 250 MMBtu/ hr and larger, with a capacity factor of 50 percent or higher. Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 6 5.0 REFERENCES 1. " Steam Its Generation and Use," Babcock and Wilcox, 40th Edition 2. " Power Test Code   Steam Generating Units," ASME PTC 4.1, 1991 3. " Personal Call from S. Khan of EPA to B. Galef of ICF," 9/ 29/ 03 4. " SNCR Feasibility and Economic Evaluation Guidelines for Fossil Fired Utility Boilers," EPRI TR 103885, May 1994 5. " Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines/ Cement Kilns/ Industrial Boilers/ Internal Combustion Engines, Technologies & Cost Effectiveness," NESCAUM, December 2000 6. " Coal Utility Environmental Cost ( CUECost) Workbook User's Manual, Version 1.0," EPA 600/ R 99 056 ( NTIS PB99 151938), June 1999 7. " EPA Modeling Application Using The Integrated Planning Model,", http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ epa ipm/ index. html 8. " Annual Energy Review 2000," DOE, http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ aer/ aerpdf. html 9. " Electric Power Monthly September 2003," DOE, http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ cneaf/ electricity/ epm/ epm. pdf 10. " Implicit Price Deflator," Table 7.3. Quantity and Price Indexes, http:// www. bea. doc. gov/ bea/ dn/ nipaweb/ TableViewFixed. asp Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 7 TABLE 1 COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS COAL FIRED BOILERS Bituminous Coal Sub Bituminous Coal Parameter Boiler   100 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   250 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   1000 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   100 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   250 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   1000 MMBtu/ hr Fuel carbon, wt. % 67.94 67.94 67.94 42.22 42.22 42.22 Fuel ash, wt. % 12.71 12.71 12.71 7.41 7.41 7.41 Fuel sulfur, wt. % 3.43 3.43 3.43 0.73 0.73 0.73 Fuel heating value, Btu/ lb 11922 11922 11922 7090 7090 7090 Steam flow, lb/ hr 86455 205750 822978 81680 194500 777500 Steam temp., F 460 600 600 460 600 600 Unburned carbon, % 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Stack gas temp., F 330 330 330 280 280 280 Boiler efficiency, % 87.798 88.028 88.098 82.981 83.211 83.281 Fuel use, lb/ hr 8424 21005 83955 14160 35324 141086 Flue gas temp. at boiler outlet, F 685 685 685 650 650 650 Flue gas from combustion, lb/ hr 99,500 248,130 991,730 104,810 261,200 1.101,660 TABLE 2 COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS GAS & OIL RED BOILERS Natural Gas Oil Parameter Boiler   100 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   250 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   1000 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   100 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   250 MMBtu/ hr Boiler   1000 MMBtu/ hr Fuel ash, wt. % NA NA NA 0.06 0.06 0.06 Fuel sulfur, wt. % NA NA NA 0.99 0.99 0.99 Fuel heating value, Btu/ lb 22548 22548 22548 18268 18268 18268 Steam flow, lb/ hr 79580 189900 797410 81930 196190 824460 Steam temp., F 460 600 600 460 600 600 Stack gas temp., F 480 480 250 480 480 345 Boiler efficiency, % 81.131 81.361 85.439 83.554 84.081 88.338 Fuel use, lb/ hr 4437 11091 44349 5475 13685 54740 Flue gas temp. at boiler outlet, F 650 650 650 650 650 650 Flue gas from combustion, lb/ hr 78,840 197,080 788,060 93,422 233,530 934,100 Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 8 TABLE 3 NOx REDUCITON CAPABILITIES OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES NOx Level At Boiler Outlet, lb/ MMBtu Boiler Fuel LNB LNB/ OFA LNB/ OFA/ GR Bituminous coal( 1) 0.45 0.35 NA Sub bituminous coal ( 1) 0.35 0.25 NA Natural gas( 2) See note 0.1 0.05 Oil ( 0.36 lb/ MMBtu)( 3) NA NA 0.25 Oil ( 0.5 lb/ MMBtu)( 2) See note 0.35 0.25 Notes 1. The NOx levels achievable for bituminous and sub bituminous coals are based on information provided in Attachments 3 and 4, which takes into account the limitations caused by the relatively smaller sizes of the industrial boilers compared to the utility boilers. Also, gas recirculation technology is not considered applicable to coal fired boilers.

2. It is recognized that some of the smaller boilers ( especially the shop built boilers) may not have space to add OFA. The NOx reduction capability is conservatively selected for the gas and oil fired boilers, so that the boilers, which cannot be retrofitted with OFA, would still, on an average, be able to achieve the NOx level listed for the LNB/ OFA.

3. For oil firing with the baseline emission of 0.36 lb/ MMBtu, the LNB and LNB/ OFA technologies may not provide significant NOx reduction. Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 9 TABLE 4 BOILER PERFORMANCE IMPACTS OF LNB, OFA, AND GR Technology Boiler Size MMBtu/ hr Reduction in Boiler Efficiency % Increased Auxiliary Power kW Increased Fuel Use lb/ hr Increased Ash Generation lb/ hr 100 0.23 0.5 19 20 250 0.23 1.0 48 51 LNB/ OFA on bituminous coal 1000 0.23 4.5 193 204 100 0.23 0.5 33 20 250 0.23 1.0 81 51 LNB/ OFA on subbituminous coal 1000 0.23 4.5 325 203 100 NA 18 NA NA 250 NA 45 NA NA LNB/ OFA/ GR on gas 1000 NA 159 NA NA 100 NA 21 NA NA 250 NA 52 NA NA LNB/ OFA/ GR on oil 1000 NA 197 NA NA Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 10 TABLE 5 BOILER PERFORMANCE IMPACTS OF SCR Fuel Boiler Size MMBtu/ hr Anhydrous Ammonia Use lb/ hr Increased Auxiliary Power kW Catalyst Replacement Ft3/ yr 100 20 72 138 250 49 184 345 Coal 1000 195 691 1380 100 9 65 21 250 21 140 58 Gas 1000 83 425 247 100 15 67 39 250 38 144 97 Oil, 0.5 lb/ MMBtu Inlet NOx 1000 150 538 387 100 11 62 42 250 27 131 102 Oil, 0.36 lb/ MMBtu Inlet NOx 1000 109 488 406 Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 11 TABLE 6 BOILER PERFORMANCE IMPACTS OF SNCR Technology Boiler Size MMBtu/ hr Reduction in Boiler Efficiency % Urea Use gph Water Use gpm Increased Fuel Use lb/ hr( 1) Increased Auxiliary Power kW Increased Ash Generation lb/ hr 100 0.48 13 3 40 3 5 250 0.48 34 7 100 6 13 Coal 1000 0.48 134 29 399 26 52 100 0.18 5 1 169 0.4 NA 250 0.18 13 3 423 3 NA Gas 1000 0.18 52 11 1776 10 NA 100 0.37 10 2 19 1 0.14 250 0.35 26 6 48 5 0.34 Oil, 0.5 lb/ MMBtu Inlet NOx 1000 0.35 103 22 202 19 1.43 100 0.27 7 2 14 1 0.1 250 0.26 19 4 35 5 0.25 Oil, 0.36 lb/ MMBtu Inlet NOx 1000 0.25 74 16 145 14 1.1 Notes 1. The fuel use is expressed in lb/ hr for coal and oil and scf/ hr for gas. Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 12 TABLE 7 CAPITAL COSTS FOR NOx CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS Capital Costs, NOx Control Retrofits $/ MMBtu/ hr Technology Fuel Boiler Size 100 MMBtu/ hr Boiler Size 250 MMBtu/ hr Boiler Size 1000 MMBtu/ hr LNB Coal ( bit. and sub bit.) 5097 3872 2554 LNB/ OFA Coal ( bit. and sub bit.) 7281 5531 3649 LNB/ OFA Gas 2554 1940 1280 LNB/ OFA/ GR Gas 3991 3031 2000 LNB/ OFA Oil 2554 1940 1280 LNB/ OFA/ GR Oil 3991 3031 2000 SCR Coal 14562 11062 7298 SCR Gas 8009 6084 4014 SCR Oil 11067 8407 5547 SNCR Coal 5266 4000 2639 SNCR Gas 4212 3200 2111 SNCR Oil 4081 3100 2045 Notes 1. The cost for each technology was established based on recent industry data( 5) and Attachment 3.

2. A scaling factor of 0.3 was used to project costs for different boiler sizes. Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 13 TABLE 8 NOx Technology Retrofit Costs COAL, GAS & OIL FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILERS Fuel Technology NOx Reduction % Capacity Factor % $/ Ton of Pollutant 1000 MMBtu/ hr 250 MMBtu/ hr 100 MMBtu/ hr Coal LNB, sub bituminous 51 14 1520 2304 3033 50 426 645 849 83 256 389 512 Coal LNB/ OFA, sub bituminous 65 14 1727 2608 3428 50 496 743 972 83 306 454 593 Coal LNB/ OFA, bituminous 51 14 2197 3317 4358 50 634 947 1239 83 392 581 757 Coal SCR 80 14 4481 5924 7262 50 1359 1766 2141 83 876 1123 1349 Coal SNCR 40 14 2962 4015 4970 50 1510 1814 2073 83 1285 1473 1625 Gas LNB/ OFA 60 5 5260 7973 10521 50 526 797 1052 94 280 424 559 Gas LNB/ OFA/ GR 80 5 6204 9415 12374 50 656 981 1278 94 368 543 700 Gas SCR 80 5 14815 21095 26859 50 1670 2330 2933 94 986 1354 1689 Gas SNCR 40 5 14,165 20,870 27,105 50 2,452 3,116 3,735 94 1,842 2,193 2,521 Oil LNB/ OFA ( 0.5 lb/ MMBtu 30 10 2630 3986 5260 inlet NOx) 50 526 797 1052 86 306 464 612 Oil LNB/ OFA/ GR ( 0.5 lb/ MMBtu 50 10 2505 3790 4973 inlet NOx) 50 533 791 1028 86 326 477 615 Oil LNB/ OFA/ GR ( 0.36 lb/ MMBtu 30 10 5694 8613 11303 inlet NOx) 50 1210 1798 2337 86 741 1085 1399 Oil SCR ( 0.36 lb/ MMBtu inlet NOx) 80 5 14,601 20,113 25,838 50 1,622 2,178 2,767 86 1,017 1,343 1,694 Oil SCR ( 0.5 lb/ MMBtu inlet NOx) 80 5 10,458 14,443 18,544 50 1,191 1,595 2,014 86 760 997 1,245 Oil SNCR ( 0.5 lb/ MMBtu inlet 40 10 4271 5892 7399 NOx) 50 1749 2070 2367 86 1485 1670 1840 Oil SNCR ( 0.36 lb/ MMBtu inlet 40 10 5497 7753 9842 NOx) 50 1995 2444 2853 86 1628 1889 2123 Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates 14 TABLE 9 COST SENSITIVIY EVALUATIONS   NOx TECHNOLOGIES $/ ton of NOx Fuel Technology Sensitivity Parameter( 1) NOx Reduction % Capacity Factor % 1000 MMBtu/ hr 250 MMBtu/ hr 100 MMBtu/ hr Coal LNB/ OFA, bituminous Increased power cost 51 14 50 83 2198 635 393 3318 948 582 4359 1240 758 Coal SCR Increased power cost 80 14 50 83 4541 1418 936 5988 1830 1187 7325 2203 1412 Coal SCR Increased capital cost 80 14 50 83 5179 1554 994 6981 2062 1301 8653 2531 1584 NOTES 1. Two sensitivity parameters were evaluation: 1) increased power cost from 25 mills/ kwh to 50 mills/ kwh and 2) an increase of 25 percent in the SCR capital cost.


123456789 10 11 12 13 14 A B C Millstone impingement and entrainment losses.

Amy Gage, 11/ 13/ 02 Worksheet Description QC Notes losses Assembly of losses data used for regional species determination QC'd by A. Gage and M. Barron 12/ 13/ 02 silversides. imp Used silverside data from 1992 because not included in 2001. Need to make sure this is most recent silveQC'd by M. Barron. 12/ 12/ 02.

1987. invert. imp Invertebrate impingement for 1976 1987. QC'd by M. Barron. 12/ 12/ 02.

wint. flound. 2001 Entrainment data from 2001 report ( Winter Flounder Studies). Data for 1984 2001 QC'd by M. Barron. 12/ 12/ 02.