[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13262-13263]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 19b-7 and Form 19b-7; OMB Control No. 3235-0553; SEC File
No. 270-495.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of the existing
collection of information provided for in the following rule: Rule 19b-
7 (17 CFR 240.19b-7).
    The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act'') provides a framework for self-regulation under which
various entities involved in the securities business, including
national securities exchanges and national securities associations
(collectively, self-regulatory organizations or ``SROs''), have primary
responsibility for regulating their members or participants. The role
of the Commission in this framework is primarily one of oversight: the
Exchange Act charges the Commission with supervising the SROs and
assuring that each complies with and advances the policies of the
Exchange Act.
    The Exchange Act was amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act of 2000 (``CFMA''). Prior to the CFMA, federal law did not allow
the trading of futures on individual stocks or on narrow-based stock
indexes (collectively, ``security futures products''). The CFMA removed
this restriction and provides that trading in security futures products
would be regulated jointly by the Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
    The Exchange Act requires all SROs to submit to the SEC any
proposals to amend, add, or delete any of their rules. Certain entities
(Security Futures Product Exchanges) would be national securities
exchanges only because they trade security futures products. Similarly,
certain entities (Limited Purpose National Securities Associations)
would be national securities associations only because their members
trade security futures products. The Exchange Act, as amended by the
CFMA, established a procedure for Security Futures Product Exchanges
and Limited Purpose National Securities Associations to provide notice
of proposed rule changes relating to certain matters.\1\ Rule 19b-7 and
Form 19b-7 (17 CFR 249.822) implemented this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\These matters are higher margin levels, fraud or
manipulation, recordkeeping, reporting, listing standards, or
decimal pricing for security futures products; sales practices for
security futures products for persons who effect transactions in
security futures products; or rules effectuating the obligation of
Security Futures Product Exchanges and Limited Purpose National
Securities Associations to enforce the securities laws. See 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information is designed to provide the Commission
with the information necessary to determine, as required by the Act,
whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
rules thereunder. The information is used to determine if the proposed
rule change should remain in affect or be abrogated.
    The respondents to the collection of information are SROs. Five
respondents file an average total of 12 responses per year. Each
response takes approximately 17.25 hours to complete, which corresponds
to an estimated annual response burden of 207 (12 responses x 17.25
hours) hours. The average cost per response is approximately $4,607.25
(17.25 hours multiplied by an average hourly rate of $267.09). The
resultant total related cost of compliance for these respondents is
approximately $55,287 per year (12 responses x $4,607.25 per response).

    Compliance with Rule 19b-7 is mandatory. Information received in
response to Rule 19b-7 shall not be kept confidential; the information
collected is public information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: Alexander--
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30
days of this notice.

     Dated: March 4, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4823 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Jeff Burton<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
11/18/2005 02:07 PM

To

Kendra Schlueter/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Re: Ventilation questions

-- From D. Jeff Burton, PE, CIH    http://www.eburton.com -- tel
801-298-8996 -- fax<PHONE_NUMBER>      ----> Check out VENT 2006! =
http://www.aiha.org/aihce06/vent2006.htm

Hi, Kendra.

My responses are shown at ******

(1) The first question pertains to the number of fume hoods required per

firm, which is driven by the firm¹s annual usage of an aerosol cleaner.

The first question can best be asked with a scenario:

     A firm has 16 employees which use a particular aerosol solvent

in rework type applications in NAICS code 334, Computer and Electronic

Product Mfg.  If 16 employees are doing the same operation in several

areas of the plant‹how many fume hoods would be necessary?  Would all
16

employees share 1 fume hood?  As a firm¹s size increases, at what point

would two fume hoods be necessary 32 employees, 64 employees?

*******The answer depends on several factors: toxicity and hazard rating
of the solvent; how the solvent is used; hours of "rework" per day and
per worker; work rate; how many are doing "rework" at any one time, the
size or dimensions of the "rework" material or part, and so forth.

As a minimum, we expect at least two feet of hood face per person. So
two workers could work in a five-foot hood, for example, if all the
"rework" would fit in the hood.

More normally it is one person per hood. So if four people have to work
simultaneously with relatively small parts, we would normally recommend
four 4-foot hoods, for example.

(2) What is your best cost estimate of an industrial fume hood used in

the aforementioned application and industry?

As a general rule, we figure it costs $5,000 to $10,000 to properly
design and install a lab hood plus it's air cleaner, fan, ductwork,
stack, makeup air unit, controls, etc. If more than one hood is
installed at the same time, the costs will be lower. But again, costs
depend on many factors: the hood type and quality, ductwork materials
and fittings, design effort, control types and quality, air cleaning
requirements, permit requirements, geographical location, commissioning
costs, and so forth.

In most cases, it is the long-term operating costs that become
significant, not the initial costs. These two costs have to be
considered together. A cheap initial installation might be more
"expensive" in the long-run than a quality initial installation that has
higher capital costs but lower O&M costs.

(3)  What is your best cost estimate to train one employee on such fume

hoods?

A good 1-day training course should be sufficient in most cases: about
$2500 if I did the training. If you have more than one employee being
trained at the same time, then the costs will be lower, of course.
Again, many variables must be considered: Working with ethyl alcohol in
a hood is much different than working with plutonium and training
requirements will differ as well. And you must consider hood type,
materials to be used, educational level of worker, language
considerations (speaks Spanish?), and so forth.

Best wishes! -- Jeff


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65160-65162]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-5324]

Compliance Policy for Limited Modifications to Certain Marketed
Tobacco Products; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Compliance Policy for Limited Modifications to Certain Marketed
Tobacco Products.'' This guidance describes FDA's compliance policy for
premarket review requirements for two types of limited modifications to
new tobacco products that were on the market as of August 8, 2016,
specifically, modifications to battery-operated tobacco products solely
to comply with UL 8139 and modifications to liquid nicotine products
solely to comply with the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of
2015 (CNPPA) flow restrictor requirements for liquid nicotine
containers. This guidance will enable tobacco manufacturers to upgrade
their battery-operated tobacco products to UL 8139. It will also enable
manufacturers to comply with the CNPPA requirements for flow
restrictors for liquid nicotine containers. FDA is issuing this
guidance to address battery safety concerns and youth exposure to
liquid nicotine toxicity.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on November 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-5324 for ``Compliance Policy for Limited Modifications to
Certain Marketed Tobacco Products.'' Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two

copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be
confidential with a heading or cover note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy,
including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of
comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential
information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the
Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact
information to be made publicly available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and
you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information
marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance
with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a Fax number to which
the guidance document may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Mease or Lauren Belcher, Center
for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Compliance Policy for Limited Modifications to Certain
Marketed Tobacco Products.'' We are issuing this guidance consistent
with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (Sec.  10.115 (21 CFR
10.115)). We are implementing this guidance without prior public
comment because we have determined that prior public participation is
not feasible or appropriate (Sec.  10.115(g)(2)). We made this
determination because the guidance presents a less burdensome policy
that is consistent with public health. The guidance presents a less
burdensome policy as it provides that FDA does not intend to enforce
violations of the premarket review requirements against certain types
of limited modifications to new tobacco products that were on the
market as of August 8, 2016--specifically, modifications to battery-
operated tobacco products solely to comply with UL 8139 and
modifications to liquid nicotine products solely to comply with the
CNPPA flow restrictor requirements for liquid nicotine containers. The
guidance is consistent with public health because FDA believes that, in
modifying their products to comply with UL 8139 or the CNPPA flow
restrictor requirements, manufacturers will reduce the risk of battery-
related adverse experiences and acute nicotine toxicity. Although this
guidance document is for immediate implementation, it remains subject
to comment in accordance with FDA's GGP regulation.
    UL (formerly known as Underwriters Laboratories), along with the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), FDA, Health Canada, the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and other industry
stakeholders, developed a voluntary industry standard, ANSI/CAN/UL 8139
Standard for Safety for Electrical Systems of Electronic Cigarettes and
Vaping Devices (UL 8139), to help manufacturers address battery hazards
for electronic cigarettes and other battery-operated tobacco products.
The standard applies to all battery chemistries and types. UL 8139
prescribes an approach to evaluate the safety of the electrical,
heating, cell, battery, and charging systems of these products. UL 8139
testing includes battery management system evaluation for normal use
and foreseeable misuse, mechanical stress testing, accidental
activation, compatibility with interconnected systems, and
environmental resilience. This testing enhances consumer safety,
minimizes battery-related injuries, and mitigates potential risks. FDA
recognizes that, to comply with UL 8139, manufacturers of battery-
operated tobacco products may need to change certain aspects of their
products.
    On March 8, 2019 and August 15, 2019, CPSC staff issued letters to
industry providing manufacturers with information regarding the testing
parameters that CPSC will use to assess compliance with the restricted
flow requirements of 16 CFR 1700.15(d). FDA has received inquiries
about tobacco product manufacturers modifying their e-liquid products
to comply with the restricted flow requirements. FDA recognizes that to
comply with these requirements, manufacturers of liquid nicotine
products may need to change certain aspects of their products.
    In this guidance, FDA sets out its compliance policy for premarket
review requirements with respect to two types of limited modifications
to new tobacco products that were on the market as of August 8, 2016:
(1) Modifications to battery-operated tobacco products solely to comply
with UL 8139 and (2) modifications to liquid nicotine products solely
to comply with the CNPPA flow restrictor requirements for liquid
nicotine containers. This policy provides that FDA does not intend to
enforce violations of the premarket review requirements against such
modified products on the basis of these limited modifications.
    The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on these
topics. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The
collections of information in section 910(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387j(c)(1)(A)(i))
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0768; the collections
of information in section 905(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387e(j))
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0673; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 1107 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0684.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
either https://www.regulations.gov or https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm. Use the
FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current
version of the guidance.

    Dated: November 20, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-25578 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

AIRCRAFT ENGINES — SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RELATED TO EXHAUST
EMISSIONS

PROPOSED RULE

OMB Control No. 2060-NEW

EPA ICR No. 2427.01

January 2011

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR MANDATOR REPORTING OF GREENHOUSE GASES, PROPOSED RULE

EPA ICR No. 2427.01

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

TITLE: “Aircraft Emission Standards – Proposed Rule.”

OMB Control Number: 2060-NEW

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new set of
emission standards for new aircraft engines. The proposed rule would
require manufacturers to report production volumes, technical
parameters, and emission information in addition to what is already
required under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Clean Air Act section 231 (42 U.S.C. 7571) authorizes EPA to adopt
emission standards for aircraft engines.  The Clean Air Act additionally
provides broad authority for EPA to collect information related to the
regulations we adopt for aircraft and other emission sources (42 U.S.C.
7414(a)(1)).  EPA is accordingly adopting a new set of emission
standards for aircraft gas turbine engines and adding a requirement for
manufacturers to submit information related to these standards.

	2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA will use the data to verify compliance with emission standards and
to better understand the characteristics of aircraft engines that are
subject to emission standards.  This information will be very helpful in
future  rulemakings as we continue to explore appropriate and achievable
emission standards for aircraft engines.  This will be especially useful
in evaluating alternative approaches to specifying the transition to new
standards.  For example, we may want to specify a certain number of
allowable exemptions for a transition period, or allow manufacturers to
“earn” an allowance to produce higher-emitting engines for a time
with emission credits, offsetting the higher emissions with other
engines that have emission levels below what would otherwise be
required.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a) Nonduplication

The International Civil Aviation Organization maintains and “emissions
databank” with much of the information that is the subject of the
proposed reporting requirement.  The ICAO databank is a useful tool for
providing a general overview of the aircraft fleet, but it is not
updated on a consistent basis, it contains a varying amount of
voluntarily reported data from each manufacturer, and it does not
specifically include information for every engine sub-model.   It also
does not contain information on smaller thrust category turbofans or
turboprops, and contains no information on engine production volumes.
We need this data to conduct accurate emission inventories and develop
appropriate policy; therefore, the emissions databank is not necessarily
the proper tool for us to use to inform our policy decisions, including
future standard-setting actions.  Furthermore, while the situation is
unique here, in the context of the roles of EPA and FAA with regard to
aircraft engine emission standards, it is consistent with EPA policy and
practice to ask for timely and reasonable reporting of emission
certification testing and other information that is relevant to our
emission standards.

	3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to Information Collection Request
(ICR) Submissions to OMB

	As part of the Federal Register notice on the proposed regulation, EPA
is also soliciting comments on this information collection and the
estimates in this ICR. EPA will solicit comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC 3501 et seq.),
EPA submitted this ICR for the proposed rule to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

	3(c) Consultations

In developing the proposed rule, EPA met with many of the manufacturers
that would need to submit information under the new requirements.
Discussions included the extent, form, and timing of the information
submissions.

	3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

 We are proposing to require annual reporting.  This is consistent with
the common practice of submitting the information to the ICAO Databank,
and also with the requirement to submit greenhouse gas data.  Much of
the information will not change from year to year; we would expect that
the new information would often be limited to the production volumes for
the preceding year.  Having the information updated every year will be
most helpful for confirming, in a timely way, that manufacturers are
properly complying with regulatory requirements.  It will also help us
to stay abreast of any developments in the characteristics of the
aircraft engine industry.

	3(e) General Guidelines

This collection of information is consistent with all OMB guidelines
under 5 CFR 1320.6.  EPA’s proposal to allow a variety of electronic
and hard copy formats for records allows flexibility for facilities to
use a system that meets their needs and is consistent with other
facility records maintenance practices, thereby minimizing the
recordkeeping burden.

	3(f) Confidentiality

In general, emission data collected under CAA sections 114 and 208
cannot be declared confidential business information (CBI). We would,
however, generally consider manufacturers’ production volumes to be
CBI and would accordingly protect this information in accordance with 40
CFR part 2. Although CBI determinations are usually made on a
case-by-case basis, EPA has issued guidance on what constitutes emission
data that cannot be considered CBI (56 FR 7042, February 21, 1991).

	3(g) Sensitive Questions

This information collection does not ask any questions concerning sexual
behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually
considered private.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

The respondents in this proposed information collection include
manufacturers of aircraft gas turbine engines.

	4(a) Respondents/North American Industrial Classification Systems
(NAICS) Codes

All of the expected respondents are manufacturers of new aircraft
engines, which are represented by NAICS Code 336412.

	4(b) Information Requested

 Reporting Requirements

We are proposing to require the information listed below as applicable
for each affected gas turbine engine sub-model in order to establish our
own independent engine exhaust emissions database. We are seeking
comment on the proposed data reporting elements.

•  Company corporate name as listed on the engine type certificate;

•  Calendar year for which reporting;

•  Complete sub-model name (This will generally include the model name
and the sub-model identifier, but may also include an engine type
certificate family identifier.)

•  The type certificate number, as issued by the FAA  (Specify if the
sub-model also has a type certificate issued by a certificating
authority other than the FAA);

•  Date of issue of type certificate and / or exemption, i.e. month
and year;

•  Emission standards to which the engine is certified, i.e. Annex 16,
Volume II, edition number and publication date;

•  If this is a derivative engine, identify the original certified
engine model;

•  Engine sub-model that received the original type certificate for
the engine type certificate family;

•  Production volume of the sub-model for the previous calendar year,
or if zero, state that the engine model is not in production and list
the date of manufacture (month and year) of the last engine produced;

•  Regarding the above production volume report, specify (if known)
the number of engines that are intended for use on new aircraft and the
number intended for use as certified (non-exempt) spare engines on
in-use aircraft;

•  Reference pressure ratio;

•  Combustor description (type of combustor where more than one type
available on an engine);

•  Engine maximum rated thrust output, in kilonewtons (kN) ) or watts
(W) (depending on engine type);

•  Unburned hydrocarbon (HC) mass (g) total (weighted) and over each
segment of the Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO), i.e. Take-off, Climb,
Approach, Taxi / Ground Idle;

•  Unburned hydrocarbon characteristic level (i.e. mass of
hydrocarbons over LTO cycle / Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo);

•  Carbon monoxide (CO) mass (g) total (weighted) and over each
segment of the entire Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-off,
Climb, Approach, Taxi / Ground Idle);

•  Carbon monoxide (CO) characteristic level (i.e. mass of CO over LTO
cycle / Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo)) ;

•  Nitrogen oxides (NOx) mass (g) total (weighted) and over each
segment of the entire Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-off,
Climb, Approach, Taxi / Ground Idle);

•  Nitrogen oxides (NOx) characteristic level (i.e. mass of NOx over
LTO cycle / Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo)).

•  Smoke number total and over each segment of the entire Landing and
Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-off, Climb, Approach, Taxi / Ground
Idle);

•  Smoke number characteristic level;

•  Carbon dioxide (CO2) mass (g) total (weighted) and over each
segment of the entire Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO), i.e. Take-off,
Climb, Approach, Taxi / Ground Idle;

•  Number of tests run per sub-model;

•  Number of engines tested per sub-model;

•  Fuel flow (grams / second) total (weighted) and over each segment
of the Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-off, Climb, Approach,
Taxi / Ground Idle); and

•  Any additional remarks to the EPA.

The proposed annual report would be submitted for each calendar year in
which a manufacturer produces any affected gas turbine engine.  These
reports would be due to EPA by February 28 of each year, starting with
the 2014 calendar year.  Where information provided for any previous
year remains valid and complete, manufacturers may report your
production figures and state that there are no changes instead of
resubmitting the original information. To facilitate and standardize
reporting, we expect to specify a particular format for this reporting
in the form of a spreadsheet or database template that we provide to
each manufacturer.  Note that this annual report does not affect the
existing regulatory requirements in § 87.64 to report CO2 and NOx
emission data for purposes of greenhouse gas reporting.  We are,
however, clarifying those provisions to specify that CO2 reporting
should be for individual modal values rather than a weighted composite
value. Additionally, both the greenhouse gas reporting and this
reporting will be incorporated into one submission in order to minimize
the reporting burden to the manufacturer.

Recordkeeping Requirements

Manufacturers would not need to keep records other than copies of the
information submitted to EPA.  They would need to keep these records for
at least three years.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED – AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODS,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a) Agency Activities

EPA activities associated with the rule include creating a reporting
template and answering manufacturers’ questions about how to complete
the form.  Once the reporting program is in place, EPA activities would
include monitoring and verification of emission reports, further
communication and outreach, and program evaluation.

	5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Manufacturers would submit data electronically.  We will maintain
records of these files and plan to post non-CBI data on our website.

	5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

One manufacturer, Williams International, is a small business under the
criteria established by the Small Business Administration.  The proposed
information collection involves a minimal amount of additional effort,
so we are not proposing any provisions to reduce the burden of sending
or keeping this information.

	5(d) Collection Schedule

We are proposing to require annual reporting.  This is consistent with
the common practice of submitting the information to the ICAO Databank,
and also with the requirement to submit greenhouse gas data.  Much of
the information will not change from year to year; we would expect that
the new information would often be limited to the production volumes for
the preceding year.  Having the information updated every year will be
most helpful for confirming, in a timely way, that manufacturers are
properly complying with regulatory requirements.  It will also help us
to stay abreast of any developments in the characteristics of the
aircraft engine industry.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section presents EPA’s estimates of the burden and costs to
respondents associated with the activities described in Section 4 as
well as the Federal burden hours and costs associated with the
activities described in Section 5(a). EPA estimates that, over the three
years covered by this request, the total respondent burden associated
with this reporting would average 60 hours per year and the cost to all
respondents of the information collection would average $3646 per year.

Section 6(a) of this ICR provides estimates of burden hours for all
respondent types. Section 6(b) contains estimates of respondent costs
for the information collection. Section 6(c) summarizes Federal burden
and costs. Section 6(d) describes the respondent universe and the total
burden and cost of this collection to respondents. Section 6(e) presents
the bottom line burden and cost. The burden statement for this
information collection is in Section 6(f).

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA estimates that the total annual burden to all affected entities
would be 6 hours per year over the three years covered by this
information collection. EPA estimates that 10 respondents will submit a
report each year.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Costs to respondents associated with this information collection include
labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by manufacturers to meet the
information collection requirements of the proposed rule).  Because the
proposed requirements merely supplement existing activities, we believe
manufacturers will incur no non-labor costs (e.g., the cost of
purchasing and installing equipment or contractor costs associated with
providing the required information).

To calculate labor costs, EPA estimated technical, managerial, clerical,
and legal loaded labor rates for each industry sector using labor rates
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and applying a 60% loading factor.
The labor rates are:  $71.03 for managers; $55.20 for
Engineers/technicians; $29.65 for clerical staff, and $101.00 for legal
staff.

EPA estimates that the annual cost to each engine manufacturer would
average 6 hours and $365 over the three years covered by this
information collection. This is based on an estimated effort involving 1
hour for managers, 1.5 hours for engineers, 2 hours for clerical staff,
and 1.5 hours or attorneys.  Manufacturers are already required to
submit similar information annually, so we expect that submitting and
keeping the additional records will involve no capital costs and no O&M
costs.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

This section describes the burden and cost to the Federal government
associated with this information collection.  Federal activities under
this information collection include EPA oversight of the reporting
program.

EPA burden and cost

EPA activities associated with the proposed rule include oversight and
implementation of the reporting program, e.g., monitoring and
verification of emission reports, communication and outreach, and
program evaluation.  EPA estimates that this would involve up to 10
staff hours per year for these activities.

To develop EPA labor costs, EPA estimates the average hourly labor rate
for salary and overhead and benefits for Agency staff to be $50.14. To
derive this figure, EPA multiplied the hourly compensation at GS-12,
Step 5 on the 2010 General Schedule pay scale ($32.73) by the standard
government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6 to account for overhead
and benefits.

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

We expect to receive annual reports from 10 manufacturers.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

The estimated bottom line burden hours and costs are 60 hours per year
and $3,646 per year.

6(f) Burden Statement

The respondent reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to be an average of 60 hours and $3,646 per year. The average
annual burden to EPA for this period is estimated to be 10 hours. The
annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 6 hours per response. Burden means
the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for
a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public
docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. When in the system,
select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687 and OMB Control Number
2060-NEW on any correspondence.

 See Regulation Part 87-Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines, Subpart E, §87.42  Certification report to EPA for
definitions.

 Dp/Foo : total gross emission of each gaseous pollutant (mass) / rated
thrust (g/kN).

 These rates reflect adjustments of the manufacturing sector's average
productivity increase of 3.7% per year for 6 quarters between 2006 Q2
and 2007 Q4, based on the estimate released by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics in March 2008.

 The ICR Handbook (November 2005) recommends using a multiplier of 1.6
to account for benefits and overhead related to government wages; this
is considered a conservative estimate (potentially high) for the private
sector.

Page   PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30860-30862]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14173]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0626]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Wyandotte Invites, Detroit River,
Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for
certain navigable waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel,
Wyandotte, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure
safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after the Wyandotte Invites event.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 12:30
p.m. on July 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0626 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department,
Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
COTP Captain of the Port
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard just recently received the final details of this rowing
event, Wyandotte Invites, which does not provide sufficient time to
publish an NPRM prior to the event. Thus, delaying the effective date
of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to
public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to
protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated
with this event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with
this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the
likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an
unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing
regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety
and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a special local
regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety
of life and property during this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 8
a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on July 15, 2018. In light of the aforementioned
hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is
necessary to protect

spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation
will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River,
Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-
bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position
42[deg]11.0' N, 083[deg]09.4' W (NAD 83); the second line, to the
north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42[deg]11.7'
N, 083[deg]08.9' W (NAD 83).
    An on-scene representative of the COTP may permit vessels to
transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene
representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law
enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators
desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16
or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the
public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means,
including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation.
Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local
regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the
Detroit River from 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on July 15, 2018. Moreover,
the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule
allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a special local regulation lasting less than five hours that will
prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration

supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T09-0626 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T09-0626   Special Local Regulation; Wyandotte Invites,
Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following regulated area is established as
a special local regulation: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton
Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: the
first line is drawn directly across the channel from position
42[deg]11.0' N, 083[deg]09.4' W (NAD 83); the second line, to the
north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42[deg]11.7'
N, 083[deg]08.9' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement date. The regulated area described in paragraph (a)
will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on July 15, 2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Vessels transiting through the regulated area
are to maintain the minimum speeds for safe navigation.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter, transit through, anchoring
in, remaining in, or operate within the regulated area must contact the
CTOP Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to
do so. The COTP Detroit or his designated representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all
directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
    (d) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-14173 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83540-83541]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1855-050]

Great River Hydro, LLC; Notice Establishing Procedural Schedule
for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following amended hydroelectric application
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 1855-050.
    c. Date Material Amendments Filed: December 7, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Great River Hydro, LLC (Great River Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Connecticut
River in Windsor and Windham Counties, Vermont, and Sullivan and
Cheshire Counties, New Hampshire. There are no federal lands within the
project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: John Ragonese, FERC License Manager, Great
River Hydro, LLC, 40 Pleasant Street, Suite 202, Portsmouth, NH 03801;
(603) 498-2851 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Great River Hydro filed an application for a new license for the
Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 1855 on May 1, 2017. In the
license application, Great River Hydro stated that it could not develop
a complete licensing proposal for the project since many of the
required environmental studies were not complete as of May 1, 2017.
Great River Hydro indicated that it would amend the license application
after completing additional field work, consultation, and analyses on
the required studies. Great River Hydro filed material amendments to
the final license application on December 7, 2020.
    l. Project Description: The existing Bellows Falls Project consists
of: (1) A 643-foot-long, 30-foot-high concrete dam that includes: (a)
Two 18-foot-high, 115-foot-wide steel roller gates; (b) two 13-foot-
high, 121-foot-wide stanchion flashboards; and (c) a 13-foot-high, 100-
foot-wide stanchion flashboard; (2) a 26-mile-long, 2,804-acre
impoundment with a useable storage volume of 7,467 acre-feet between
elevations 288.63 and 291.63 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929 (NGVD 29); (3) a 1,700-foot-long, 36- to 100-foot-wide, 29-foot-
deep stone-lined power canal; (4) a 130.25-foot-wide concrete forebay
that includes trashracks with 4-inch clear bar spacing; (5) a 186-foot-
long, 106-foot-wide, 52-foot-high steel frame, brick powerhouse
containing three 13.6-megawatt (MW) vertical Francis turbine-generator
units, for a total project capacity of 40.8 MW; (6) three approximately
20-foot-high, 31-foot-wide concrete draft tubes; (7) a 900-foot-long
tailrace; (8) a 12-foot-wide, 10-foot-high ice sluice; (9) three 80-
foot-long, 6.6-kilovolt generator leads that connect the turbine-
generator units to two step-up transformers; (10) a 920-foot-long, 8-
foot-wide fishway; (11) a concrete fish barrier dam in the bypassed
reach; and (12) appurtenant facilities.
    Great River Hydro operates the project in coordination with its
upstream Wilder Project No. 1892 and downstream Vernon Project No. 1904
and in a peaking mode. Average annual generation is approximately
239,070 MW-hours. Great River Hydro is proposing changes to project
operation that would reduce impoundment fluctuations and increase the
stability of downstream flow releases relative to current project
operation, including targeted water surface elevation levels and flow
ramping rates. Great River Hydro proposes several protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures for aquatic, terrestrial,
cultural, and recreation resources, and threatened and endangered
species. The specific proposed changes are described in the amended
application.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., license application) via
the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document (P-
1855). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    n. You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues letter identifying           January 2021.
 application deficiencies and requesting
 additional information.
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for       May 2021.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms   July 2021.
 and conditions, and fishway prescriptions.
Reply Comments due...........................  August 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: December 16, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28237 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60401-60402]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

FAA Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Boise Air Terminal
(Gowen Field) Boise, Idaho

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings (Record of Approval) on the noise compatibility program
submitted by the City of Boise, Idaho for the Boise Air Terminal (Gowen
Field) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR part
150 (Part 150). On May 2, 2016, the FAA determined that the noise
exposure maps submitted by the City of Boise for the Boise Air Terminal
under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On
August 24, 2016 the FAA approved the Boise Airport Noise Compatibility
Program. Seven of the 13 measures recommended in the noise
compatibility plan were approved and six measures were disapproved for
the purposes of Part 150. In addition, 22 measures were included in the
noise compatibility plan that requested no FAA action as they were
approved in a previous record of approval, were removed from
consideration, or disapproved in a previous record of approval. These
measures and FAA's associated determinations are summarized in the
attachment to the Record of Approval.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Boise Airport Noise Compatibility Program is August 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Eaton, Federal Aviation
Administration, Helena Airports District Office, FAA Building, Suite 2,
2725 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602-1213, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same
location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for the Boise
Air Terminal, effective August 24, 2016.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with the Part 150 regulations is a local program, not a Federal
program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the
airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended
for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of Part 150 program
recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in
Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in Part 150, section 150.5.
Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land
uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself
constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or
approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be
required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental review of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Helena Airports District Office in Helena,
Montana. The City of Boise submitted to the FAA on December 21, 2015,
the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced
during the noise compatibility planning study for the Boise Air
Terminal conducted in 2014 and 2015. The Boise Air Terminal noise
exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with
applicable requirements on May 2, 2016.
    Notice of this determination was published in the Federal Register
on May 10, 2016 (FR Volume 81, No. 90, pages 28933-28934) and as
corrected on May 16, 2016 (FR Volume 81, No. 94, pages 30414-30415).
    Comments received during the noise compatibility planning public
process were addressed in the final noise compatibility program
submitted to FAA. In addition, seven sets of

comments were received during the 60-day public comment period for the
Boise Airport Noise Compatibility Program that ended July 1, 2016. None
of the comments warranted any changes to the NCP. The comment letters
and the responses to the comments, which were reviewed and acceptable
to FAA, are posted on the airport's Web site at http://www.iflyboise.com/about-boi/noise-compatibility-program/.
    The majority of the comments received during the 60-day comment
period for the noise compatibility program regarded military aircraft.
It is important to note that the Part 150 study process has no bearing
on whether or not, or what type of military jets will be stationed at
the Boise Air Terminal in the future. Since the future of the Idaho Air
National Guard (IDANG) current A-10 mission is uncertain, the Boise Air
Terminal, in conjunction with IDANG, prepared a hypothetical future
forecast using the F-15E as a potential replacement for the A-10.
However, the Department of the Air Force has not yet determined IDANG's
follow-on mission after A-10 divestiture and therefore the sponsor
lacked sufficient data to confirm the F-15E as the replacement for the
A-10. It was noted in the Part 150 study that there are transient F-
15E's that use the Boise Air Terminal throughout the year.
Acknowledging this, the sponsor developed the 2015 noise exposure maps
to include the transient F-15E Strike Eagles, among many other existing
Boise Air Terminal aircraft, in the Noise Model. All measures proposed
in the noise compatibility program are based on the current year noise
exposure maps and not on future noise exposure maps as they are
considered speculative at this time as well. The Record of Approval
also does not specifically tie the proposed noise mitigation measures
to the 2015 noise exposure maps as shown in the Part 150 Study. When
the fleet mix and/or operational levels at the Boise Air Terminal
change, the sponsor will update the noise exposure maps to reflect that
change in accordance with Part 150 regulations. Furthermore, any change
in aircraft by the Department of Defense will require compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    The Boise Air Terminal study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions. It was
requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise
compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA
began its review of the program on December 13, 2015, and was required
by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within
180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for
noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within
the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained 1 noise abatement measure and 12
noise mitigation/land use compatibility measures recommendations for
FAA action. The FAA completed its review and determined that the
procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and Part 150 have
been satisfied. The overall program therefore, was approved by the FAA
on August 24, 2016.
    Approval was granted for 7 of the 13 measures and 6 measures were
disapproved for the purposes of Part 150. In addition, 22 measures were
included in the noise compatibility plan that requested no action by
FAA as they were approved in a previous record of approval, were
removed from consideration, or disapproved in a previous record of
approval. These measures and FAA's associated determinations are
summarized in the attachment to the Record of Approval.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Airports Division Manager, Northwest Mountain
Region on August 24, 2016. The Record of Approval, as well as other
evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal are
available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the Boise
Air Terminal (Gowen Field), 3201 Airport Way, Boise, ID 83705. The
Record of Approval also will be available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on August 24, 2016.
Randall S. Fiertz,
Manager, Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-21105 Filed 8-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P