[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80486]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-112-002]

ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 15, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 9, 2010, ONEOK Field Services Company,
L.L.C. (OFS) filed pursuant to a November 23, 2010, Letter Order issued
in Docket Nos. PR10-53-000 and PR10-53-001 which required OFS to file a
revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) to reflect the new
maximum and minimum rates, and revised General Terms and Conditions.
    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 7 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 Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32071 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24120-24122]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10672]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-9963-10-ORD]

Request for Nominations of Experts to the EPA Office of Research
and Development's Board of Scientific Counselors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking
nominations for technical experts to serve on its Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC), a federal advisory committee to the Office of
Research and Development (ORD). Submission of nominations is preferred
via the BOSC Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted by June 30, 2017, per
instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public needing
additional information regarding this Notice and Request for
Nominations may contact Mr. Tom Tracy, Office of Science Policy, Office
of Research and Development, Mail Code 8104-R, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/
voice mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the BOSC can be
found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The BOSC is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee that was
established by the EPA to provide independent scientific and technical
peer review, advice, consultation, and recommendations about ORD. As a
Federal Advisory Committee, the BOSC conducts business in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and
related regulations.
    The BOSC is comprised of an Executive Committee and five supporting
subcommittees. The subcommittees focus on ORD's research programs: Air,
Climate, and Energy Research Program; Chemical Safety for
Sustainability Research Program and Human Health Risk Assessment
Program; Homeland Security Research Program; Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources Research Program; and Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research Program. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-research-and-development-ord to learn more about these programs.
    Members of the BOSC are recognized experts in various scientific,
engineering, and social science fields. EPA will consider nominees from
industry, business, public and private research institutes or
organizations, academia, government (federal, state, local, and tribal)
and non-government organizations, and other relevant interest areas.
Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a period of three
years and serve as special government employees. EPA values and
welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse
candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial
and ethnic groups.

Expertise Sought

    EPA is seeking nominations of nationally and internationally
recognized scientists and engineers having experience and expertise in
one or more of the following areas:

 Atmospheric Science
    --aerosol chemistry
    --aerosol physical science
    --air quality modeling
    --atmospheric chemistry
    --atmospheric physics
 Biology
    --biogeochemistry
    --cell biology
    --endocrinology (endocrine disruptors)
    --microbiology/molecular biology
    --pharmacokinetics
    --systems biology
 Chemistry
    --analytical chemistry
    --combustion chemistry
    --environmental chemistry
    --green chemistry
    --physical chemistry
    --water chemistry
    --biogeochemistry
 Climate Change/Global Change
    --adaption
    --modeling
    --variability
    --greenhouse gas technology
    --assessment
 Ecology
    --ecosystem services
    --aquatic/systems ecology (freshwater, wetland, estuary, near-
coastal)
    --hydrology/hydraulics (watershed modeling)
    --plant/forestry ecology
    --water resources
    --soil biogeochemistry
    -- system ecology
    --landscape ecology
    --urban ecology
 Engineering
    --biochemical engineering
    --bioenvironmental engineering
    --engineering (drinking water treatment, wastewater treatment,
stormwater treatment and management, water reuse, water infrastructure)
    --chemical engineering
    --combustion engineering
    --environmental engineering (decontamination, clean-up, management)
    --industrial engineering
    --mechanical engineering
 Information Science
    --information technology
    --computer/web-based tool development
    --information visualization
    --research communication
    --spatial analysis
    --uncertainty analysis
 Nanotechnology/Emerging Materials (exposure and hazard
characterization)
 Public Health
    --children's health
    --community health
    --environmental health
    --epidemiology/molecular epidemiology
 Exposure Science (human, ecological, chemical fate and
transport, computational exposure, exposure modeling)
 Risk Assessment (cumulative, mixtures, ecological, human
health)
 Nutrients (nutrient management/thresholds, best management
practices, human/ecological health)
 Cyanobacteria/Harmful Algal Blooms
 Watershed Management (surface water, groundwater)
 Sustainability
    --community/urban level planning and sustainability
    --industrial (industrial ecology, life cycle analysis, technology
policy, systems engineering)
    --energy
    --water, energy and food nexus
 Toxicology
    --computational toxicology (computational biology, genomics,
proteomics, metabonomics, computational chemistry, high-throughput
bioassays, informatics, bioinformatics, predictive toxicology)
    --ecotoxicology
    --developmental/reproductive toxicology
    --immunotoxicology
    --molecular toxicology
    --neurotoxicology
    --pulmonary/cardiovascular toxicology
    --carcinogenesis
 Science Policy
 Environmental Justice
 Program Evaluation
 Social Science
    --community disaster recovery and resiliency
    --economics (ecological economics, environmental, natural resources
and agriculture)
    --socioeconomics
    --sociology
    --decision science
 Behavioral Science
    --psychology
    --ecopsychology
    --environmental psychology
    --conservation psychology
    --social neuroscience
    --risk perception
    --risk/crisis communication
    --community decision making
 Decision Science
    --decision analysis
    --value of information
    --decision support system

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations

    Any interested person or organization may nominate themselves or
qualified individuals in the areas of expertise described above.
Nominations should be submitted via the BOSC Web site (which is
preferred over hard copy) at: https://www.epa.gov/bosc. Nominations
should be submitted in time to arrive no later than July 21, 2017. To
receive full consideration, nominations should include all of the
information requested. EPA requests: Contact information about the
person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee;
the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee;
committee preference; the nominee's curriculum vita and/or resume; and
additional information that would be useful for considering the
nomination such as background and qualifications (e.g., current
position, educational background, expertise, research areas),
experience relevant to one or more of ORD's research programs, service
on other advisory committees and professional societies, and
availability to participate as a member of the Executive Committee and/
or Subcommittee. Persons having questions about the nomination
procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the BOSC
Web site, should contact Mr. Tom Tracy, as indicated above in this
notice.

Selection Criteria

    The BOSC is a balanced and diverse expert committee. The committee
and each of its subcommittees possess necessary domains of expertise,
depth and breadth of knowledge, and diverse and balanced scientific
perspectives. Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several
criteria including: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise,
knowledge, and experience; (b) availability to serve and willingness to
commit time to the committee (approximately one to three meetings per
year including both face-to-face meetings and teleconferences); (c)
absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an
appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e) skills working on committees
and advisory panels; and (f) background and experiences that would
contribute to the diversity of viewpoints on the Executive Committee or
Subcommittee, e.g., workforce sector, geographical location, social,
cultural,

and educational backgrounds, and professional affiliations.
    The EPA's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of
interest will include a review of the ``Confidential Financial
Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal
Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'' (EPA
Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government Officials to
determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's
public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal
Advisory Committee) and private interests and activities, or the
appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation.
The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address,
https://www.epa.gov/sap/confidential-financial-disclosure-form-environmental-protection-agency-special-government.

    Dated: May 18, 2017.
Fred S. Hauchman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-10672 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13230-13235]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04694]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0842; FRL-9958-15-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide; Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate matter of less than 10 microns (PM10) State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as submitted on December 11, 2015. The
revision will update the Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans to reflect changes in available
controls, operating practices, and cleaner fuel options that have
resulted in significant reductions of SO2 and
PM10 emissions in the maintenance areas. EPA will also
approve the removal of existing title I SO2 SIP conditions
for six facilities from the SO2 SIP, and the state's
evaluation that such changes ensure continued attainment of the
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 9, 2017, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by April 10, 2017. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0842 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Control
Strategies

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-6061<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
    A. Rochester SO2 Maintenance Plan
    B. Olmsted County PM10 Maintenance Plan
II. What changes have been made as part of the SIP revision?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

A. Rochester SO2 Maintenance Plan

    A maintenance area is an area which at one time failed to meet one
or more NAAQS, but is now in compliance and has an EPA approved plan
for continued attainment. The City of Rochester was originally
designated nonattainment for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR
8962). On July 14, 1980, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted its original SO2 SIP for the City of Rochester,
which EPA approved on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). The passage of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 mandated additional requirements
for nonattainment area SIPs, and the MPCA worked with sources in the
Rochester SO2 nonattainment area to revise and update
permits and develop dispersion modeling analyses to ensure attainment
of the SO2 NAAQS. In 1998, the MPCA submitted a SIP revision
and redesignation request for the City of Rochester seeking a
designation of attainment for the SO2 NAAQS. This SIP
revision included air quality permits for seven facilities in
Rochester: Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) Silver Lake Plant (Silver
Lake); RPU Cascade Creek Combustion Turbine (Cascade Creek); Associated
Milk Producers; St. Mary's Hospital (St. Mary's); Olmsted Waste-to-
Energy Facility (Olmsted WTE); Franklin Heating Station (Mayo); and
IBM. Only the portions of the permits cited as title I SIP conditions
for SO2 were incorporated into the SIP.\1\ The SIP also
included modeling data demonstrating that the applicable areas in the
City of Rochester had achieved and would maintain attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS with the control measures in the SIP. Ambient air
monitoring results included in the 1998 redesignation request, actually
demonstrated that the area had maintained the SO2 NAAQS
since 1979. The EPA approved the SO2 attainment
demonstration and maintenance plan SIP revision and redesignation
request for the City of Rochester on May 8, 2001 (66 FR 14087).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1995, EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP Minnesota's
consolidated permitting regulations. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The
consolidated permitting regulations included the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition''
is defined, in part, as ``any condition based on source specific
determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of
achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air
quality standards and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA
or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the
act. . . .'' MINN. R. 7007.1011 (2013). The regulations also state
that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to comply
with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.'' MINN. R.
7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/
Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP
requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA
are cited as ``Title I conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP
requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the
state's procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to
implement site specific SIP requirements and found it to be
acceptable under both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
(July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky,
MPCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the City of Rochester's redesignation to attainment, the
seven facilities in the area have all considerably reduced their
emissions of SO2. The emissions reductions reflect changes
in available controls, operating practices, and cleaner fuel options.
On December 11, 2015, MPCA submitted to EPA a revision to the Rochester
SO2 SIP updating the Rochester SO2 plan to
reflect these changed conditions and reduced SO2 emissions.
The SIP revision specifically updates title I SO2 SIP
conditions for the RPU Silver Lake Plant, reflecting the facility's
recent decommissioning of its coal-fired equipment and fuel switch to
natural gas. The incorporation of these revised title I SO2
SIP conditions alone, ensures enough SO2 emissions
reductions to offset the removal of the other six facilities from the
SIP, and provide continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.
These facilities will continue to be regulated by the MPCA via its air
quality permitting program.

B. Olmsted County PM10 Maintenance Plan

    The MPCA also seeks to update the SIP conditions associated with
the Olmsted County maintenance area for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.
The RPU Silver Lake Plant is the sole source in the Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance area, which was redesignated to attainment
July 31, 1995. (60 FR 28339) The SIP revision and associated permit
action for the RPU Silver Lake Plant will update title I
PM10 SIP conditions, similar to those for SO2,
reflecting the facility's fuel switch from coal to natural gas and will
result in significant decrease in SIP-authorized PM10
emissions from the facility.

II. What changes have been made as part of the SIP revision?

    Since the City of Rochester's redesignation to attainment in 2001,
facilities in the SIP have reduced SO2 emissions well beyond
the levels of control envisioned when the maintenance plan SIP was
approved. The EPA-approved SIP currently authorizes up to 10,535.4 tons
per year (tpy) of SO2 from all seven facilities. However, in
2014, the seven sources together emitted approximately 58.255 tons of
SO2. (See Table 1)

           Table 1--Rochester SIP (Actual) SO2 Emissions 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2014 SO2
         Facility name           SIP approved permit No.     emissions
                                                              (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Milk Producers......  10900010-001                       0.07
Franklin Heating Station (SIP    1148-83-OT-1 [10900019]           12.65
 requirements are in Mayo
 Medical Clinic Rochester
 10900084).
IBM............................  10900006-001                       0.07
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy          10900005-002                       9.91
 Facility.
Rochester Public Utilities--     10900020-003                       0.17
 Cascade Creek.

Rochester Public Utilities--     10900011-004                      0.005
 Silver Lake.
St. Mary's Hospital............  10900008-003                      35.38
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................          58.255
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change in operations at RPU Silver Lake has been the most
significant contributor to reduced SO2 emissions in the City
of Rochester. RPU Silver Lake was previously a 100-megawatt, coal-fired
generating facility. Changes affecting energy generation nationwide,
including coal prices, EPA requirements, and reduced energy demand,
resulted in a 2012 decision by RPU to decommission the Silver Lake
Plant as an energy generating unit. As of June 1, 2015, RPU Silver Lake
is a steam-producing facility providing a contracted amount of steam to
the Mayo Clinic campus for cogeneration needs. The fuel burned for
steam production in the boilers is natural gas. In light of these
emissions and operational changes, the MPCA analyzed options for
reducing facility-specific SIP requirements in the City of Rochester
maintenance area. The MPCA determined that title I SO2 SIP
permit conditions addressing the changed operations at RPU Silver Lake
are stringent enough to ensure NAAQS compliance without continued
inclusion of title I SO2 SIP conditions for other facilities
in the City of Rochester. For this reason, the MPCA is requesting that
EPA approve a revision to Minnesota's SO2 SIP for the City
of Rochester, incorporating updated title I SO2 SIP and
certain PM10 SIP conditions for RPU Silver Lake and removing
from the SIP all title I SO2 SIP conditions associated with
RPU Cascade Creek, Associated Milk Producers, St. Mary's, Olmsted WTE,
Mayo, and IBM.
    The previous RPU Silver Lake permit (No. 10900011-004) contained
SIP requirements necessary to ensure compliance with SO2 and
PM10 NAAQS, and was approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1220
on September 7, 2007. The most recent Major Amendment (DQ #5197)
incorporates changes in operation and classification of the facility.
Silver Lake was previously permitted to operate all four boilers
(EU001-EU004) on coal and/or other fuels. The boilers were used for
electrical generation and steam service. The facility ceased coal
firing permanently in 2013. Two of the boilers (EU001 and EU004) have
ceased operation and were officially retired at the end of 2015. Silver
Lake will no longer produce electricity for sale and will operate its
remaining units on natural gas only. Due to these changes, the MPCA
seeks to remove all existing SO2 SIP requirements from the
Silver Lake permit and certain PM10 SIP requirements
pertaining to coal-fired operations, and add new title I SIP conditions
authorizing only natural gas as an acceptable fuel at the remaining
boilers. Once approved by EPA, the SIP-allowable potential-to-emit
(PTE) for Silver Lake will go from 6,220 tpy to 1.12 tpy of
SO2 and from 2,060 tpy to 14.2 tpy of PM10. No
construction or emissions increases are authorized by the permit
action. The RPU Silver Lake permit (No. 10900011-005) was finalized and
issued on November 25, 2015.
    The MPCA also seeks to remove from the City of Rochester
SO2 maintenance SIP all incorporated title I SO2
SIP conditions from 40 CFR part 52 subpart Y (52.1220) associated with
the following facilities: RPU Cascade Creek (No. 10900020-003),
Associated Milk Producers (No. 10900010-001), St. Mary's (No. 10900008-
003), Olmsted WTE (No. 10900005-002), Mayo (No. 1148-83-OT-1
[10900019]), and IBM (No. 10900006-001).

III. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

    Our primary consideration for determining the approvability of the
Minnesota's revision to the Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans in the SIP is whether these revisions
comply with section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) of the CAA
provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if that revision
interferes with any applicable requirement regarding attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other requirement established in the
CAA.
    The EPA can, however, approve a SIP revision that removes or
modifies control measures in the SIP once the state makes a
``noninterference'' demonstration that such removal or modification
will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, or any other CAA
requirement. Minnesota has evaluated the impacts of approving these
revisions.
    The current, SIP-limited PTE in the City of Rochester
SO2 maintenance area is 10,469.7 tpy. Table 2 shows the SIP-
authorized PTE for the SIP facilities, as well as the unrestricted PTEs
for the facilities proposed for removal. RPU Silver Lake is already
operating in the capacity proposed for SIP approval (natural gas is
currently approved as an allowable fuel in the SIP, and the facility is
firing its two remaining boilers with natural gas), and as a result
SO2 emissions have dropped considerably. Emissions of
SO2 from 2013, the last year the RPU Silver Lake facility
burned coal, were 554 tons; emissions from 2014 were less than 0.01
ton. Upon approval by EPA of the SIP revision and associated title I
SO2 SIP conditions, the facility's PTE will drop from 6,220
tpy SO2 to 1.12 tpy SO2.
    A reduction of this magnitude (6218.88 tpy) more than offsets the
amount of SIP-limited inventory from all other Rochester SIP
facilities, with the current total SIP-limited PTE from all other
SO2 SIP sources totaling 4315.4 tpy. It is extremely
unlikely that any of the remaining SIP facilities (or any facility in
the City of Rochester) would ever seek to increase emissions to a level
approaching that of the reduction resulting from the operational
changes and SIP revision for RPU Silver Lake, even without title I SIP
conditions included in their permits. Any facility seeking an increase
in SO2 emissions approaching the level of emissions reduced
by RPU Silver Lake, would trigger Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements, presumably including modeling,
ensuring protection of the NAAQS. Additionally, though an anti-
backsliding demonstration must only ensure that the emissions
reductions provided by the SIP revision are equivalent or greater to
the emissions reductions originally provided by control being modified,
i.e., account for the ``SIP-creditable'' emissions reductions, Table I
also shows that even the facilities' unrestricted PTE would not exceed
the current SIP-limited

emissions inventory. In effect, it is not possible for the facilities
to emit more SO2 than is currently approved by the SIP. As
noted in Table 1, in 2014 the seven current SIP sources together
emitted approximately 58 tons of SO2, with St. Mary's having
the highest emissions of the seven, at just over 35 tons.

                     Table 2--Rochester SIP Potential To Emit: SIP Approved and Unrestricted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Current SIP-
                                                                         approved SO2     Unrestricted SO2 PTE
             Facility name                  SIP approved permit No.        PTE (tpy)              (tpy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Milk Producers.............  10900010-001                              83.4  1,452
Franklin Heating Station (SIP           1148-83-OT-1 [10900019]                  3,867  3,947
 requirements are in Mayo Medical
 Clinic Rochester 10900084).
IBM...................................  10900006-001                              99.0  425.2
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility......  10900005-002                             102.3  137.2
Rochester Public Utilities--Cascade     10900020-003                              98.0  405
 Creek.
Rochester Public Utilities--Silver      10900011-004                             6,220  1.12 (facility remains
 Lake.                                                                                in the SIP with new SIP-
                                                                                approved PTE).
St. Mary's Hospital...................  10900008-003                              65.7  738.8
                                                                       -----------------------------------------
    Total.............................  ..............................        10,535.4  7,106.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions demonstration above shows that emissions reductions
from RPU Silver Lake are sufficient to ensure that the original SIP
attainment/maintenance emissions inventory will not be exceeded by the
facilities proposed for removal even operating at unrestricted PTE
levels. The facilities proposed for removal from the Rochester
SO2 SIP however, will not operate at unrestricted PTE levels
and will remain under the purview of the MPCA air quality permitting
program, and as such, will be regulated at the state level. The NAAQS
are an applicable requirement for all air emissions permits in
Minnesota, and the MPCA maintains the authority in Minn. R. 7007.0500,
subp. 1(E) and subp. 2(E), and 7007.0800, to require demonstrations of
NAAQS compliance through permit actions.
    Further, the facilities proposed for removal from the SIP have
continued to reduce SO2 emissions through the availability
of cleaner fuels and efficiency improvements not required by the SIP.
For example, IBM is constructing newer, more efficient boilers to
replace certain boilers authorized under the SIP. This change will
reduce their total facility limited PTE to 5.89 tpy SO2.
Additionally, Mayo has been authorized to use No. 6 fuel oil as a back-
up fuel when natural gas was not available for three boilers; they now
use No. 2 fuel oil as a backup for these boilers. The MPCA is currently
processing a permit action to incorporate these changes, which will
result in a new PTE of less than 127 tpy of SO2--a
significant reduction from their current SIP-authorized PTE of 3,867
tpy.
    The SIP revision will result in an overall decrease of SIP-
authorized emissions in the City of Rochester Maintenance area, and the
most recent emission inventory data shows that actual emissions from
the existing SIP sources are significantly lower than the SIP-
authorized limits. This information, combined with the most recently
available monitoring data \2\ for the City of Rochester show that the
SIP revision will not jeopardize continued attainment of the annual,
24-hour, and 3-hour SO2 NAAQS addressed in the existing
maintenance SIP, nor will it threaten attainment of the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The SIP revision will also result in a reduction
of PM10 emissions in the existing PM10
maintenance SIP, thereby ensuring continued maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2014, an SO2 monitor was installed in the City
of Rochester (EPA Air Quality System, or AQS no. 271-095-008).
Monitoring data from 2014 captures the operational changes at RPU
Silver Lake, and is generally reflective of the expected continued
operation of the other SIP facilities in the City of Rochester. The
low ambient air concentrations of SO2 captured by the
monitor indicate that the area is not likely to exceed any of the
existing SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also examined whether the changes outlined in the SIP revision
have interfered with attainment of other air quality standards. The
City of Rochester is designated attainment for all other standards
including ozone and nitrogen dioxide. EPA has no reason to believe that
Minnesota's revision to the Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County
PM10 maintenance plans have caused or will cause the
Rochester area to become nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In
addition, EPA believes that the approval of Minnesota's revision to the
Rochester SO2 and Olmsted County PM10 maintenance
plans will not interfere with the area's ability to meet any other CAA
requirement. Based on the above discussion and the state's 110(l)
demonstration, EPA believes that the updates to the Rochester
SO2 and Olmsted County PM10 maintenance plans
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS
in the Rochester, MN area and would not interfere with any other
applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus, is approvable under CAA
section 110(l).

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to the Rochester SO2 and
Olmsted County PM10 SIPs, as submitted by MPCA on December
11, 2015. The revision will consolidate existing permanent and
enforceable SO2 and PM10 SIP conditions into the
RPU Silver Lake facility's joint title I/title V SIP document. In
addition, the revision will simultaneously remove all existing title I
SIP conditions from the remaining six facilities (RPU Cascade Creek,
Associated Milk Producers, St. Mary's, Olmsted WTE, Mayo, and IBM) from
the Rochester SO2 SIP. We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if
relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be
effective May 9, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by April 10, 2017. If we receive such
comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by
publishing a subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that
if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section
of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective May 9, 2017.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\3\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at
the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides, Particulate matter.

    Dated: December 29, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by:
0
i. Removing the entries for ``Associated Milk Producers'' (10900010-
001), ``Franklin Heating Station'' (1148-83-OT-1 [10900019]),
``International Business Machine Corp., IBM--Rochester'' (10900006-
001), ``Olmsted County, Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility'' (10900005-
002), ``Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion''
(10900020-003), and ``St. Mary's Hospital'' (10900008-003).
0
ii. Revising the entry for ``Rochester Public Utilities, Silver Lake
Plant'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA--Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        Name of source                Permit No.        effective date  EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Rochester Public Utilities,     10900011-005                  11/25/15  3/10/17, [Insert   Only conditions cited
 Silver Lake Plant.                                                      Federal Register   as ``Title I
                                                                         citation].         Condition: 40 CFR
                                                                                Section 50.4, SO2
                                                                                SIP; Title I
                                                                                Condition: 40 CFR
                                                                                pt. 52, subp. Y''
                                                                                and ``Title I
                                                                                Condition: 40 CFR
                                                                                Section 50.6, PM10
                                                                                SIP; Title I
                                                                                Condition: 40 CFR
                                                                                pt. 52, subp. Y''.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-04694 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30961]
[DOCID:fr29my08-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1758-DR]

Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1758-DR), dated May 20, 2008,
and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 20, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas resulting from severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes
beginning on May 2, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Arkansas.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with
the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and
Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth M. Riley, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Benton, Cleburne, Conway, Crittenden, Grant, Lonoke,
Mississippi, Pulaski, Saline, and Van Buren Counties for Individual
Assistance.

    Cleburne, Conway, Crittenden, Grant, Lonoke, and Van Buren
Counties for Public Assistance. Direct Federal assistance is
authorized.

    All counties within the State of Arkansas are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-11995 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50102]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF21-7-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 27, 2021, Western Area Power
Administration submitted tariff filing: Formula Rates for Western Area
Power Administration--Rate Order No. WAPA-195, to be effective 10/1/
2021.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 27, 2021.

    Dated: August 31, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19198 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42721-42723]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0494; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-017-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as failure of the fin forward pickup due to
possible fatigue cracks. We are issuing this proposed AD to require
actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 8,
2014.

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
Pacific Aerospace Unlimited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag
HN3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand, phone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7
843 6134; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.aerospace.co.nz. You may review this referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0494; 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2014-0494;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-017-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://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 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority
for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/16A, dated June 18, 2014
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an

unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes
and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information
originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI
states:

    To prevent failure of the fin forward pickup due to possible
fatigue cracks, inspect the fitting per the instructions in Pacific
Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/068
issue 3, dated 29 May 2014.
    If any cracks are found, replace both plates per PACSB/XL/068,
before further flight.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0494.

Relevant Service Information

    Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) PACSB/XL/068, issue 3, dated May 29, 2014. The actions described
in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 17 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $1,445, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $328, for a cost of
$753 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

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 proposed 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

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

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2014-0494; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-017-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 8, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the
fin forward pickup due to possible fatigue cracks. We are issuing
this proposed AD to detect and correct cracked fin forward pickup
fittings to prevent failure of the fin forward pickup.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Do the following actions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(2), including all subparagraphs, of this AD, unless
already done:
    (1) Inspect the fin forward pickup fittings for cracks on or
before 2,000 hours total time-in-service (TTIS) or 150 hours time-
in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed
600 hours TIS or annual inspection, whichever occurs first. Follow
Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/
068, issue 3, dated May 29, 2014.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(1) of this AD:  The MCAI mentions
actions that are different for standard category versus restricted
category airplanes. The Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplane is only type certificated in the normal (standard) category
in the United States so these are the actions that are specified in
this AD.

    (2) If you find any cracks as a result of any inspection
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
replace both plates. Do the replacement following Pacific Aerospace
Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/068, issue 3,
dated May 29, 2014.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/
750XL/16A, dated June 18, 2014, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0494. For service
information related to this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Unlimited,
Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag HN3027, Hamilton 3240, New
Zealand, phone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may
review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 17, 2014.
Kelly A. Broadway,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17339 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32497-32499]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0626; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-035-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-6
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to the
discovery of loose self-locking stop nuts Part Number (P/N)
9<IP_ADDRESS> in the tail landing gear fastener assemblies of some
PC-6 aircraft.
    It is believed that this occurrence could also exist in other
fastener assemblies using nuts P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> at various
identified locations in the aircraft.
    If left uncorrected, the identified assemblies may become loose
and not function as designed and could lead to hazardous situations.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2008.

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.

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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; 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-2008-0626;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-035-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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2008-0083, dated May 5, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to the
discovery of loose self-locking stop nuts Part Number (P/N)
9<IP_ADDRESS> in the tail landing gear fastener assemblies of some
PC-6 aircraft.
    It is believed that this occurrence could also exist in other
fastener assemblies using nuts P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> at various
identified locations in the aircraft.
    If left uncorrected, the identified assemblies may become loose
and not function as designed and could lead to hazardous situations.
    In order to prevent those conditions, the present AD requires
you replace self-locking stop nuts P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> from the Tail
Landing Gear Assembly, the Parachute Cable Assembly, the Water Tank
Assembly, the Cable Tensioner Assembly, the Fuel Filter Assembly,
the Hydraulic Pump Assembly and the Engine Mounts Assembly in
accordance with Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 53-002 Revision 2.

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

Relevant Service Information

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin
Number 53-002, Revision No. 2, dated September 24, 2007. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 50 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 7 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $310 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $43,500, or $870 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2008-0626; Directorate
Identifier 2008-CE-035-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 9, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/
350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/
B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes,
manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) MSN 101 through MSN 949 and MSN
2001 through MSN 2092, certificated in any category.

    Note 1: These airplanes may also be identified as Fairchild
Republic Company PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6
airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to the
discovery of loose self-locking stop nuts Part Number (P/N)
9<IP_ADDRESS> in the tail landing gear fastener assemblies of some
PC-6 aircraft.
    It is believed that this occurrence could also exist in other
fastener assemblies using nuts P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> at various
identified locations in the aircraft.
    If left uncorrected, the identified assemblies may become loose
and not function as designed and could lead to hazardous situations.
    In order to prevent those conditions, the present AD requires
you replace self-locking stop nuts P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> from the Tail
Landing Gear Assembly, the Parachute Cable Assembly, the Water Tank
Assembly, the Cable Tensioner Assembly, the Fuel Filter Assembly,
the Hydraulic Pump Assembly and the Engine Mounts Assembly in
accordance with Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 53-002 Revision 2.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, inspect and modify the fastener assemblies as instructed in
paragraph 3 of Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin
Number 53-002, Revision No. 2, dated September 24, 2007.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
on any PC-6 series aircraft, water tank assemblies and hydraulic
pump assemblies, unless they have been previously modified following
paragraph 4 of Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin
Number 53-002, Revision No. 2, dated September 24, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency EASA AD No.:
2008-0083, dated May 5, 2008; and Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC-6
Service Bulletin Number 53-002, Revision No. 2, dated September 24,
2007, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 3, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-12816 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 56815-56816]
[DOCID:fr30se08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER08-1558-000]

Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 19, 2008, Constellation Energy
Commodities Group, Inc. (Constellation) filed a request for short-term
waiver of the Commission's affiliate sales restrictions, effective
September 19, 2008, with respect to ongoing power sales by
Constellation to PacifiCorp under its market-based rate tariff, until a
more detailed proposal for future sales is filed and accepted by the
Commission, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.
824d (2006) and Part 35 of the Rules and Procedures of the Commission,
18 CFR Part 35 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 September 26, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22861 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22728-22729]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD20-3-000]

Town of Erie, Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On April 15, 2020, the Town of Erie, Colorado, filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed Lynn R.
Morgan WTF Hydroelectric Facility would have an installed capacity of
93 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing raw water
pipeline that feeds the existing Lynn R. Morgan Water Treatment
Facility near the Town of Erie, Boulder County, Colorado.
    Applicant Contact: Todd Fessenden, 645 Holbrook Street, PO Box 750,
Erie, CO 80516, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A 93-kW turbine-generator; (2) short 16-
inch-diameter inlet and outlet pipelines connecting to the existing raw
water pipeline; (3) an approximately 29-foot by 20-foot powerhouse; and
(4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an
estimated annual generation of up to 578 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies (Y/
              Statutory provision                                   Description                          N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A)................................  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal,            Y
                                                  pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar
                                                  manmade water conveyance that is operated for
                                                  the distribution of water for agricultural,
                                                  municipal, or industrial consumption and not
                                                  primarily for the generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i).............................  The facility is constructed, operated, or                    Y
                                                  maintained for the generation of electric power
                                                  and uses for such generation only the
                                                  hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned
                                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii)............................  The facility has an installed capacity that does             Y
                                                  not exceed 40 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii)...........................  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not             Y
                                                  licensed, or exempted from the licensing
                                                  requirements of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed Lynn R. Morgan WTF
Hydroelectric Facility will not alter the primary purpose of the
conduit, which is to transport raw water to a municipal water treatment
facility. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff
preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements
for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to
be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: The Commission provides all
interested

persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (i.e.,
CD20-3) in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained
directly from the applicant. At this time, the Commission has suspended
access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 16, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08635 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 60300]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0026; OMB No. 1660-0117]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; FEMA's Grants Reporting Tool (GRT)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA's Grants Reporting Tool (GRT).
    OMB Number: 1660-0117.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The Grants Reporting Tool (GRT) is a web-based reporting
system designed to help State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) meet all
reporting requirements as identified in the grant guidance of FEMA's
portfolio of preparedness grants sponsored by FEMA's Grant Programs
Directorate (GPD). The information enables FEMA to evaluate
applications and make award decisions, monitor ongoing performance and
manage the flow of federal funds, and to appropriately close out grants
or cooperative agreements. GRT supports the information collection
needs of each grant program processed in the system.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,156 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $69,423.20. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$2,062,582.02.

    Dated: September 20, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-23842 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P