[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3150-3151]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3428-187]

Brown Bear II Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of Pre-
Filing Process, and Scoping; Waiving Parts of the Pre-Filing Process;
Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and
Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Submitted By: Brown Bear II Hydro, Inc.
    c. Name of Project: Worumbo Hydroelectric Project.
    d. Location: On the Androscoggin River, in Androscoggin County,
Maine.
    e. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    f. Licensee Contact: Michael Scarzello, Regulatory Director, Eagle
Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, 116 N State Street, P.O. Box 167,
Neshkoro, WI 54960-0167.
    g. FERC Contact: Ryan Hansen at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    h. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item m below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC 61,076
(2001).
    i. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    j. With this notice, we are designating Brown Bear II Hydro, Inc.
as the Commission's non-federal representatives for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    k. Brown Bear II Hydro, Inc. filed with the Commission a Pre-
Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    l. 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 via the internet through
the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph f. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on
Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or
Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity
interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1,
and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by March 23,
2021.
    n. Scoping Process: The Commission's scoping process will help
determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping
requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an
environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.
    Due to restrictions on mass gatherings related to COVID-19, we are
waiving section 5.8(b)(viii) of the Commission's regulations and do not
intend to conduct a public scoping meeting and site visit in this case.
Instead, we are soliciting written comments, recommendations, and
information, on SD1. Any individual or entity interested in submitting
scoping comments must do so by the date specified in item m. SD1, which
outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental
document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the
Commission's official mailing list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the
web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the
directions for accessing information in paragraph l. Based on all
written comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may
include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of
issues, identified through the scoping process.
    We may conduct a site visit, if needed, later in the process, such
as in conjunction with the study plan meeting required by section
5.11(e) of the Commission's regulations which is required to occur by
June 6, 2021. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

    Dated: January 8, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00681 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43615-43617]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2906; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-068-AD;
Amendment 39-18213; AD 2015-15-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell), Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, and 212
helicopters. This AD requires removing a certain part-numbered main
rotor (M/R) blade grip (grip) from service. This AD is prompted by an
error in a parts manufacturer approval (PMA) that incorrectly allows
installation of the grips on the Bell Model 212. The actions specified
in this AD are intended to prevent grip failure, separation of the M/R
blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 7, 2015. We must receive
comments on this AD by September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address 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 Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For Timken service information identified in this AD, contact
Timken Alcor Aerospace Technologies, Inc., Aftermarket Customer
Service, 3110 N. Oakland, Mesa, AZ 85215; telephone 1-480-606-3130;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.timken.com/en-us/solutions/aerospace/aftermarket/Pages/default.aspx. You may
review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Franke, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5170; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    We are adopting a new AD for Bell Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, and 212
helicopters with a grip part number (P/N) ASI-4011-121-113 installed.
This AD requires removing any grip from service if the grip is
currently or has ever been installed on a Bell Model 212 helicopter, or
if it is unknown whether the grip has ever been installed on a Model
212 helicopter. This AD also prohibits installing grip P/N ASI-4011-
121-113 on any helicopter if the grip has ever been installed on a Bell
Model 212 helicopter. This AD is prompted by an error in the PMA that
allows installing the subject grip on the Bell Model 212.
    Grip P/N ASI-4011-121-113 is currently produced by Timken Alcor
Aerospace Technologies, Inc., under a PMA as a replacement grip for
Bell P/N 204-011-121-113. This approval incorrectly listed grip P/N
ASI-4011-121-113 as eligible for installation on Bell Model 212
helicopters. The PMA has been revised to remove that eligibility. This
grip was previously produced and sold as a replacement grip for Bell P/
N 204-011-121-113 by Air Services International of Scottsdale, AZ, as
P/N ASI-4011-121-113. The actions required in this AD are intended to
prevent installation of an unapproved grip, which could result in grip
failure, separation of the M/R blade, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist in other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Timken T-700 Service Bulletin, Revision B, dated
October 20, 2014. The service bulletin specifies the airworthiness life
limitations and inspection interval schedule for various Timken Alcor
Aerospace Technologies, Inc., replacement parts and articles.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), removing
any grip P/N ASI-4011-121-113 from service if the grip is currently or
has ever been installed on a Bell Model 212 helicopter. This AD also
prohibits installing a grip P/N ASI-4011-121-113 on any helicopter if
the grip is currently or has ever been installed on a Bell Model 212
helicopter.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The Timken service bulletin provides the airworthiness limitations
and inspection intervals for various life limited parts, including grip
P/N ASI-4011-121-113. This AD only applies to helicopters with grip P/N
ASI-4011-121-113 and requires removing the grip from service if it is
currently or has ever been installed on a Bell Model 212 helicopter.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD could affect 130 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. It takes about 20 work-hours to replace
two M/R grips per helicopter. We estimate an average labor rate of $85
per work-hour, and a required parts cost of approximately $56,385 for
two grips. Based on these figures, we estimate a total cost of $58,085
per helicopter and $7,551,050 for the U.S. fleet.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the unsafe condition can
adversely affect control of the helicopter and the required corrective
actions must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 AD would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This 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, I certify that this AD:
    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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-15-04 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell): Amendment 39-18213;
Docket No. FAA-2015-2906; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-068-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following helicopters, certificated in
any category:
    (1) Bell Model 204B, 205A, and 205A-1 helicopters, with a main
rotor (M/R) blade grip (grip) part number (P/N) ASI-4011-121-

113 installed, if the grip was ever installed on a Model 212
helicopter or if it is unknown whether a grip was ever installed on
a Model 212 helicopter; and
    (2) Bell Model 212 helicopters, with a grip P/N ASI-4011-121-113
installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as installation of a grip
that does not meet type design. This condition could result in grip
failure, separation of the M/R blade, and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 7, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service, remove each grip from
service.
    (2) Do not install a grip listed in paragraph (a) of this AD on
any helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Scott Franke,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office,
Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Timken T-700 Service Bulletin, Revision B, dated October 20,
2014, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional
information about the subject of this AD. For Timken service
information identified in this AD, contact Timken Alcor Aerospace
Technologies, Inc., Aftermarket Customer Service, 3110 N. Oakland,
Mesa, AZ 85215; telephone 1-480-606-3130; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.timken.com/en-us/solutions/aerospace/aftermarket/Pages/default.aspx. You may
review a copy of this service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6620, Main Rotor
Blade Grip.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 13, 2015.
Bruce E. Cain,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17953 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32084-32088]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14372]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851; FRL-9992-21-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU27

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition
Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking
direct final action to promulgate amendments to the Standards of
Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines. This direct final action revises the emission standards for
particulate matter (PM) for new stationary compression ignition (CI)
engines located in remote areas of Alaska.

DATES: The direct final rule is effective on October 3, 2019, without
further notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse written
comment by August 5, 2019 on the amendments, or if a public hearing is
requested by July 10, 2019. If significant adverse comments are
received on any or all of the amendments, the EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register clarifying which provisions will
become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn due to
adverse comment.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0851, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0851 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0851.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Melanie King, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The EPA has established a docket for
this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851. All documents
in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0851. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
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. The 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be

included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket
without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-
02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0851.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
II. Background and Final Rule
III. Impacts of the Final Rule
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and do
not anticipate significant adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the Standards of
Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines, if the EPA receives significant adverse comments on this
direct final rule. EPA does not intend to institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule,
see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If the EPA receives
significant adverse comment on all or a distinct portion of this direct
final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that some or all of this direct final rule will
not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Background and Final Rule

    On July 11, 2006, the EPA promulgated Standards of Performance for
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (71 FR
39154). These standards, known as new source performance standards
(NSPS), implement section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. The standards
apply to new stationary sources of emissions, i.e., sources whose
construction, reconstruction, or modification begins after a standard
for those sources is proposed. The NSPS for Stationary CI Internal
Combustion Engines established limits on emissions of PM, nitrogen
oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane
hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission standards are generally modeled after
the EPA's standards for nonroad and marine diesel engines. The emission
standards are phased in over several years and have Tiers with
increasing levels of stringency, with Tier 4 as the most stringent
level. The engine model year in which the Tiers take effect varies for
different size ranges of engines. The Tier 4 final standards for new
stationary non-emergency and nonroad CI engines generally began with
either the 2014 or 2015 model year. The standards are codified at 40
CFR part 60, subpart IIII.
    In 2011, the EPA finalized revisions to the NSPS for Stationary CI
Engines (the ``2011 Amendments'') that amended the standards for
engines located in remote areas of Alaska (76 FR 37954). The 2011
Amendments allowed owners and operators of stationary CI engines
located in remote areas of Alaska to use engines certified to marine
engine standards, rather than land-based nonroad engine standards. The
2011 Amendments also removed the requirements to meet Tier 4 emission
standards for NOX, CO, and NMHC that would necessitate the
use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) aftertreatment devices in
light of issues associated with supply, storage, and use of the
necessary chemical reductant (usually urea) in remote Alaska.\1\ As
discussed in the 2011 rulemaking, the remote communities in Alaska rely
almost exclusively on diesel engines for electricity and heat and these
engines need to be in working condition, particularly in the winter.
These communities are scattered over long distances in remote areas and
are not connected to population centers by road and/or power grid. Most
of these communities are located in the most severe arctic environments
in the United States. The costs for acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of SCR aftertreatment controls are greater than for engines
located elsewhere in the United States due to the remote location and
severe arctic climate of the villages. The aftertreatment controls had
not been tested in remote arctic climates, and engine owners and
operates were concerned that there could be operational problems with
the SCR aftertreatment systems in the remote arctic climates that could
prevent stationary CI engines from functioning properly, especially
since the majority of small power plants in remote areas are unstaffed.
Given these concerns and the higher costs for SCR aftertreatment
systems in the remote areas, the EPA determined in the 2011 Amendments
that it would not be appropriate to require new stationary CI engines
in remote areas of Alaska to meet emission standards for
NOX, CO, and NMHC that are based on the use of SCR
aftertreatment devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Remote areas of Alaska are defined in the Stationary CI
Engine NSPS as those that either are not accessible by the Federal
Aid Highway System (FAHS), or meet all of the following criteria:
(1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska Marine
Highway System, or the stationary CI engine operation is within an
isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to the statewide
electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid; (2) at
least 10 percent of the power generated by the stationary CI engine
on an annual basis is used for residential purposes; and (3) the
generating capacity of the source is less than 12 megawatts, or the
stationary CI engine is used exclusively for backup power for
renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PM, the 2011 Amendments specified that stationary CI engines
located in remote areas of Alaska would not have to meet emission
standards that would necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices
until the 2014 model year. The aftertreatment technology that was
expected to be used to meet the PM standards is a diesel particulate
filter (DPF). The EPA expected that providing additional time to gain
experience with use of DPFs would alleviate some of the concerns
associated with feasibility and costs of installing and operating DPFs
in remote villages. In a letter to the EPA Administrator dated December
20, 2017, Governor Bill Walker of Alaska requested that the EPA rescind
the PM emission standards based on aftertreatment for 2014 model year
and later stationary CI engines in remote

areas of Alaska. The letter stated that it is difficult to operate and
maintain PM aftertreatment controls on stationary CI engines in remote
areas of Alaska because of cost, complexity, and unreliability.
According to the letter, utilities in remote areas have been installing
used, remanufactured, and rebuilt pre-2014 model year engines in the
remote areas to avoid the requirement to use PM aftertreatment, instead
of installing new engines that meet the Tier 3 marine engine standards.
The EPA's expectation that experience with use of DPFs would alleviate
feasibility and cost concerns was not realized and the requirement that
2014 model year and later engines use DPFs had in fact resulted in use
of older engines. The letter indicated that new engines certified to
the Tier 3 marine engine standards are notably cleaner than the non-
certified engines currently in use in remote areas of Alaska, due to
advances in diesel engine electronic fuel injection and electronic
governors.
    After receiving the letter from Governor Walker, the EPA contacted
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) to obtain more information about the issues
described in the letter. In particular, the EPA asked for information
regarding the state's concerns about the cost, complexity, and
reliability of DPFs, as expressed in Governor Walker's letter. The EPA
also asked for information on the number of stationary CI engines that
are installed in remote areas of Alaska each year and whether any
stationary CI engines with DPFs were currently operating in the remote
areas. The AEA indicated that owners and operators of engines in rural
communities have been delaying replacement of older engines because of
the cost and concerns about having to install new engines with DPFs. As
stated in Governor Walker's letter, the communities are using rebuilt
older engines rather than installing new marine Tier 3 engines that
would be lower-emitting and more efficient.
    As noted previously, the communities in remote areas of Alaska are
not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System and/or not connected
to the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt
Grid. They are isolated and most are located in the most severe arctic
environments in the United States. It is critical for the engines in
the communities to remain in working order since the engines are used
for electricity and heating. Information provided by the AEA and engine
dealers indicates that costs for engine and control device maintenance
and repair are much higher than for engines located elsewhere in the
United States due to the remote location and severe arctic climate.
Technicians must travel to the remote areas for service and repairs,
and travel costs for technicians and shipping costs for parts are much
higher than in other areas. Information provided by the AEA indicated
that travel costs can include chartering aircraft and can be
approximately $3,000-$4,000 per trip, in addition to daily labor
costs.\2\ The travel time can range from 25 to 99 percent of the total
labor invested in a job.\3\ In addition to increased maintenance costs,
a control device vendor indicated that costs for DPF installation on an
engine in remote areas of Alaska can be more than double the costs for
an engine in Texas.\4\ The remote communities also have a shortage of
operators who are trained for the DPF equipment. Typically, the filter
element must be periodically removed and the accumulated ash must be
cleaned from the filter and captured. The AEA indicates that few
communities have the technical capacity to perform the necessary
cleaning procedures for DPFs. Another concern related to the remote
location is the difficulty and expense associated with proper disposal
of the ash collected by the DPF and used filters in hazardous waste
disposal facilities. The ash can contain metallic oxides which are
hazardous to the environment or to public health.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter from Ben Hopkins, General Manager Kaktovik
Enterprises LLC to Janet Reiser, Executive Director, Alaska Energy
Authority, June 11, 2018. Available in the rulemaking docket.
    \3\ Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific Power Group to
Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in
the rulemaking docket.
    \4\ Email from Marc Rost, Johnson Matthey to Melanie King, U.S.
EPA. Estimated DPF Capital and Operating Costs. November 19, 2018.
    \5\ Technical Bulletin on Diesel Particulate Filter Ash
Disposal. EPA National Clean Diesel Campaign. EPA-420-F-09-010.
February 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the AEA, experience with the use of DPFs in remote
areas of Alaska is very limited. The AEA was aware of only one remote
community that has installed DPFs on two engines in a power plant. The
DPFs were installed in April 2018, so there has not been experience
with the long-term operation of the engines and DPFs. The AEA noted
that rather than having the emission controls integrated with the
certified engine, as is typical for Tier 4 engines, the remote
communities will have to purchase Tier 3 marine certified engines and
equip the engines with DPFs that may come from third parties and are
not integrated into the engine's computer system, which may increase
the likelihood of problems occuring that could cause the engine to shut
down. As stated previously, the engines are generally used for heating
in the villages, so unexpected engine shutdowns could cause life safety
issues. Providers of engines and emission controls in Alaska noted that
they have experienced operational issues with nonroad and stationary
Tier 4 engines with DPFs in other areas of Alaska, even when the
controls were integrated with the engine by the original equipment
manufacturer. For example, one provider noted that he serviced two Tier
4 engines that required numerous service calls and the addition of a
parasitic load bank to maintain exhaust temperatures high enough for
DPF regeneration, which increased fuel consumption and operating
costs.\6\ Another provider stated that they sold a number of nonroad
Tier 4 engines equipped with DPFs that met extensive factory tests for
reliability and durability, but experienced numerous problems with
regeneration of the DPF once they were in-use by operators.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Summary of April 17, 2018, meeting between the EPA and the
AEA to discuss Governor Walker's request for regulatory relief.
Available in the rulemaking docket.
    \7\ Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific Power Group to
Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in
the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering all of the information provided, including the
information provided on the lack of experience with the use of DPFs on
engines in remote areas of Alaska, the potential for operational
issues, and the higher costs, the EPA has determined that such use of
DPFs is not adequately demonstrated and is revising the provision in 40
CFR 60.4216 for 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in
remote areas of Alaska. The EPA is amending the provision to specify
that 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in remote areas of
Alaska must be certified to Tier 3 p.m. standards. The EPA has
determined that the Tier 3 standards reflect the best system of
emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated. The Tier 3
standards will limit emissions of PM to levels significantly below
those of the older uncertified engines currently in use in many of the
remote communities.

III. Impacts of the Final Rule

    A detailed discussion of the impacts of these amendments can be
found in the Impacts of the Amendments to the NSPS for Stationary
Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines memorandum, which is
available in the

docket for this action. In the original 2006 rulemaking, the EPA
assumed that even in the absence of the NSPS, emissions from stationary
engines would be reduced to the same emission levels as nonroad engines
through Tier 3, since engine manufacturers frequently use the same
engine in both nonroad and stationary applications. Emission reductions
and costs were only estimated for the difference between compliance
with the Tier 3 standard and compliance with the Tier 4 standard in the
original rulemaking.\8\ Using a similar assumption, the foregone PM
reductions and costs from these amendments are calculated based on the
difference in emissions between the engines that are expected to be
used once these amendments are finalized, which are Tier 3 marine
engines, and the engines currently required by the regulations (known
as the baseline), which are Tier 3 engines (either nonroad or marine)
with a DPF. If the baseline is assumed to be a Tier 3 nonroad engine
with a DPF, then the foregone PM reductions based on the difference
between a Tier 3 marine engine and a Tier 3 nonroad engine with a DPF
are 5.3 tons per year in the first year after the amendments. In the
fifth year after the amendments, the foregone PM reductions would be 27
tons of PM per year, assuming the number of new engines installed each
year remains constant. If the baseline is assumed to be Tier 3 marine
with DPF, the difference between the Tier 3 marine emissions and the
Tier 3 marine with DPF emissions is 6.6 tons of PM per year in the
first year and 33 tons of PM in the fifth year. The cost savings in the
fifth year after the amendments are estimated to be approximately $8.0
million (2017 dollars). We also show the cost savings using a present
value (PV) in adherence to Executive Order 13771. The PV of the cost
savings is estimated in 2016 dollars as $322.9 million at a discount
rate of 3 percent and $111.2 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
Finally, the annualized cost savings over time can be shown as an
equivalent annualized value (EAV), a value calculated consistent with
the PV. The EAV of the cost savings is estimated in 2016 dollars as
$9.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $7.8 million at a
discount rate of 7 percent. All of these PV and EAV estimates are
discounted to 2016 and assume an indefinite time period after
promulgation for their calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Emission Reduction Associated with NSPS for Stationary CI
ICE. Memorandum from Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc. to
Jaime Pag[aacute]n, EPA Energy Strategies Group. May 19, 2006.
Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that the AEA has indicated that owners and operators of
engines in remote communities have been delaying replacement of older
engines because of the cost and concerns about having to install new
engines with DPFs. Thus, the costs and additional PM emission
reductions from engines installed in 2014 and later have not been
occurring as expected when the rule was originally issued in 2006.
According to the AEA, if these amendments are not finalized, the remote
communities will likely continue delaying replacement of older engines,
and will not receive the benefits of the reduced PM emissions that will
occur if the older engines are replaced by new Tier 3 engines.
Replacing an older engine with an engine meeting the Tier 3 marine
emission standard results in a significant reduction in PM emissions
compared to the Tier 0 engine emissions. For example, for a 238
horsepower engine, PM emissions from a Tier 3 marine engine are reduced
by 80 percent from a Tier 0 nonroad engine.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0590.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action reduces the impact of the
rule on owners and operators of stationary CI engines located in remote
areas of Alaska. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will
relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. While some Native Alaskan tribes and villages
could be impacted by this amendment, this rule would reduce the
compliance costs for owners and operators of stationary CI engines in
remote areas of Alaska. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the

Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    While some Native Alaskan tribes and villages could be impacted by
this amendment, the EPA believes that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). The amendments will not have a significant effect
on emissions and will likely remove barriers to the installation of
new, lower emission engines in remote communities.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 27, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60 is
amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart IIII--Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

0
2. Section 60.4216 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.4216  What requirements must I meet for engines used in
Alaska?

* * * * *
    (c) Manufacturers, owners, and operators of stationary CI ICE that
are located in remote areas of Alaska may choose to meet the applicable
emission standards for emergency engines in Sec. Sec.  60.4202 and
60.4205, and not those for non-emergency engines in Sec. Sec.  60.4201
and 60.4204, except that for 2014 model year and later non-emergency CI
ICE, the owner or operator of any such engine must have that engine
certified as meeting at least Tier 3 p.m. standards.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-14372 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3077-3078]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-54-000, et al.]

Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC, et al.; Electric Rate and
Corporate Filings

January 10, 2005.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC and J. Aron & Company

[Docket No. EC06-54-000]

    Take notice that on December 28, 2005, Duke Energy Marketing
America, LLC (DEMA) and J. Aron & Company (J. Aron) (collectively,
Applicants) filed with the Commission an application pursuant to
section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of the transfer
by DEMA of a wholesale power transaction to J. Aron. Applicants have
requested privileged treatment for commercially sensitive information
contained in the application.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2006.

2. Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE and NRG Audrain Generating,
LLC

[Docket No. EC06-55-000]

    Take notice that on December 28, 2005, Union Electric Company d/b/a
AmerenUE, and NRG Audrain Generating, LLC jointly submitted an
application pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Part
33 the sale by NRG Audrain to AmerenUE of NRG Audrain's interest in a
640 MW simple-cycle, natural gas-fired power generation facility and
associated interconnection facilities located in Audrain County,
Missouri.
    Comment Date: January 30, 2006.

3. Union Electric Company and Aquila Piatt County Power, L.L.C.; MEP
Flora Power, LLC; Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.

[Docket Nos. EC06-56-000; ER06-410-000]

    Take notice that on December 28, 2005, Union Electric Company, MEP
Flora Power, LLC (MEP Flora), Aquila Piatt County Power, L.L.C. (Aquila
Piatt County and together with MEP Flora, Sellers), and Aquila Merchant
Services, Inc. (Aquila Merchant Services) (collectively, Applicants)
jointly submitted an application (Application) pursuant to sections 203
and 205 of the Federal Power Act and Parts 33 and 35 of the regulations
of the Commission for all necessary Commission authorizations and
approvals for: (1) the sale of Sellers' interest in two generating
facilities located in southern Illinois, the Raccoon Creek and Goose
Creek generating facilities, to AmerenUE; (2) approving the assignment
to AmerenUE of Aquila Merchant Services' existing Master Purchase and
Sale Agreement dated December 17, 2004 (the PPA) with Illinois Power
Company d/b/a AmerenIP (AmerenIP); and (3) accepting the PPA and
authorizing sales by AmerenUE to AmerenIP pursuant to the PPA.
    Comment Date: January 23, 2006.

4. Blue Canyon Windpower II LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC

[Docket No. EC06-57-000]

    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Blue Canyon Windpower II LLC
(Blue Canyon II) and Flat Rock Windpower LLC (Flat Rock (collectively,
Applicants) submitted an application pursuant to section 203 of the
Federal Power Act for authorization for the disposition of
jurisdictional facilities related to the internal corporate
reorganization of Applicants' upstream ownership. Blue Canyon II is an
exempt wholesale generator that is constructing and will own and
operate a 151 MW wind farm located in southwestern Oklahoma. Flat Rock
is an exempt wholesale generator that is constructing and will own and
operate a 231 MW wind farm located in Lewis County, New York.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2006.

5. Western Kentucky Energy Corp.; LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.

[Docket No. EC06-58-000]

    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Western Kentucky Energy
Corp.

(WKEC) and LG&E Energy Marketing Inc. (LEM) (collectively, the
Applicants) tendered for filing pursuant to section 203 of the Federal
Power Act, for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional
facilities in connection with an intra-corporate consolidation of
various contracts, rights and obligations. Applicants state that the
proposed transactions are intended to consolidate in one entity, WKEC,
to the maximum extent possible, the operation and maintenance of, and
sale of power generated by, certain generating plants located in
Western Kentucky. Applicants request flexibility with respect to how
the transaction will be consummated.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2006.

6. PacifiCorp; TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC

[Docket No. EC06-59-000]

    Take notice that on January 5, 2006, PacifiCorp and TransAlta
Centralia Generation LLC (collectively, Applicants) pursuant to section
203 of the Federal Power Act submit a joint application for
authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby
PacifiCorp will sell and TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC will
acquire a 3-mile unidirectional 230 kV transmission line and related
facilities extending from and including the tap and disconnecting
switches near Tower No. 47 of BPA's Chehalis-Covington Line to the
dead-end structures at the Generating Plant, and all associated
easements and rights-of-way located near Centralia, Washington.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 26, 2006.

7. United States Department of Energy; Western Area Power
Administration

[Docket No. EF06-5111-000]

    Take notice that on December 27, 2005, the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Energy, confirmed and approved Rate Order No. WAPA-124
and Rate Schedules CAP-FT2, CAP NFT2, and CAP-NITS2 for the Central
Arizona Project transmission services. Rate Schedules CAP-FT2, CAP-
NFT2, and CAP-NITS2 will be placed into effect on an interim basis
effective January 1, 2006. These Rate Schedule will be submitted for
conformation and approval on a final basis effective January 1, 2006,
and ending December 31, 2010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-496 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 43670]
[DOCID:fr06au07-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 13e-3
(Schedule 13E-3); OMB Control No. 3235-0007; SEC File No. 270-1

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 13e-3 and Schedule 13E-3 (17 CFR 240.13e-3 and 240.13e-100)--
Rule 13e-3 prescribes the filing, disclosure and dissemination
requirements in connection with a going private transaction by an
issuer or an affiliate. Schedule 13E-3 provides shareholders and the
marketplace with information concerning going private transactions that
is important in determining how to respond to such transactions. The
information collected permits verification of compliance with
securities laws requirements and ensures the public availability and
dissemination of the collected information. We estimate that Schedule
13E-3 is filed by approximately 600 issuers annually and it takes
approximately 137.25 hours per response. We estimate that 25% of the
137.25 hours per response is prepared by the filer for a total annual
reporting burden of 20,588 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether these collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to 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>
    Dated: July 30, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15181 Filed 8-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P