MEMORANDUM  |  19 September 2006

TO	James DeMocker, EPA/OAR/OPAR

from	Jim Neumann, IEc

	Jim Wilson and Andy Bollman, EH Pechan and Associates

subject	Documentation of Analysis of 1990-2002 Emissions for Select

Non-EGU Stationary Point Sources

A recent white paper prepared by EPA/OAQPS staff suggests that the
emissions projection methodology that the Agency has historically used
for non-EGU stationary and nonpoint sources may overestimate actual
emissions for these sources.  As part of our quality assurance reviews
of the draft Section 812 emissions inventories recently put before the
SAB Council Air Quality Modeling Subcommittee, IEc and Pechan have
compared emissions data from the 2002 NEI for select non-EGU stationary
point source categories with estimates based on projection of the 1990
NEI estimates using EPA's current emissions projection methodology. The
results allow us to evaluate whether actual 2002 emissions from an ex
post perspective (derived from the 2002 NEI) are comparable to estimates
that would have been obtained from an ex ante perspective using the 1990
NEI and the current projection methods.  If the ex ante estimates
correspond well with ex post results, we can conclude that the
projection method provides a reasonably unbiased estimate; if the ex
ante estimate is higher than the ex post estimate, we can conclude that
the projection method may overestimate actual emissions for the
1990-2002 period, as the white paper suggests.  This memorandum
documents the methods and the results of that analysis, and provides a
discussion of the implications of this analysis for the Section 812
emissions inventories.

In summary, the results of our analysis do not conclusively support a
particular projection method or a broad adjustment to one component of
the method.  Instead, the results provide insights on the types of
biases the method may present and the sector-specific research needed to
improve projections.  For some source categories and pollutants, the
projection method appears to provide an unbiased estimate.  For others,
the projection is higher than actual, in a few cases by a very wide
margin.  In still other cases, the projection is lower than actual,
though the differences in those cases appear to be slight.  Furthermore,
within a particular source category, the results are mixed across
pollutants.  The implications of these results are that we recommend
that sulfur emissions from copper smelters be adjusted in the Section
812 without CAAA scenario to reflect the unanticipated steep drop in
activity over the 1990-2002 period.

Methods

The analysis involved four steps: 1) Identify a short list of non-EGU
stationary point source emitting sectors and pollutants for analysis; 2)
Collect information on known regulatory actions at the federal or local
level that went into effect between 1990 and 2002 and that affected
emissions from sources in each of the selected sectors; 3) Identify the
relevant emissions driver used in the Section 812 analysis for the
sector; 4) Calculate an "alternative projection" for 2002 for each
pollutant-sector combination based on the 1990 NEI, "grown" using the
emissions driver identified in Step 3, and adjusted for the impact of
regulatory actions identified in Step 2.

We identified six sectors for this analysis: auto assembly plants;
copper smelters; glass manufacturing; cement manufacturing (kilns);
petroleum refineries; and industrial boilers.  For all but one of these
sectors we looked at national emissions estimates; for industrial
boilers, we looked only at sources in the Midwest RPO, comprising five
states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  We chose a
limited geographic area for the industrial boilers in part because of
the ready availability of data for that region on regulatory actions
during the 1990-2002 period, and in part to ensure the analysis was
manageable in scope.  The sectors represent a range of pollutants,
geographic distribution of sources, and economic output trends -
nonetheless, they are a sample of convenience and we can make no
conclusive statements about the representativeness of the results for
the full range of non-EGU point sources.  In total, the six sector scope
accounts for approximately 27, 21, 9.6, and 1.3 percent of total SO2,
NOx, VOC and PM2.5 emissions, respectively, in the non-EGU point source
component of the 2002 NEI.

Information on regulatory activity in the 1990 to 2002 period was
collected from readily available sources, mostly information from
Regional Planning Organizations that had also been used to develop the
Section 812 with-CAAA emissions projections for 2010 and 2020.  The
sources and information we accessed is described in detail in Chapter 3
of Emission Projections for the Clean Air Act Second Section 812
Prospective Analysis: Draft Report of June 23, 2006, prepared by IEc and
Pechan for EPA/OAR/OPAR.  In this analysis, however, we accessed these
sources for parallel information on the 1990-2002 period; regulatory
activity in that period is not directly used in the Section 812 reports,
which take the 2002 NEI as the "launching point" for projection of the
with-CAAA scenarios and therefore implicitly incorporate the impact of
regulation through 2002.

The emissions drivers used in this analysis are the same drivers used in
the Section 812 analysis; most are based on historical data obtained
from DOE that are consistent with the AEO 2005 projections, either of
fuel consumption (e.g., for industrial boilers and cement kilns) or
economic activity.  These are described in detail in Attachment A to
this memo, which also includes the SCC scope of the emissions analysis
by sector.  In general, in this exercise, economic output-based drivers
were used for auto assembly plants, copper smelters, glass
manufacturing, and cement manufacturing; fuel-consumption based output
drivers were used for industrial boilers; and a mix of fuel-consumption
based (for process heaters) and product throughput based factors (for
sources such as fugitive emissions) are used for petroleum refiners.
Note that, when a fuel-based factor is used, there is differentiation by
fuel type (e.g., natural gas versus coal), but there is no
differentiation within fuel type to indicate such qualities as sulfur
content.

The results presented below include, for each pollutant sector
combination, two NEI reference points and two estimated values.  The
reference points are the reported 1990 and 2002 NEI emissions.  The 2002
NEI estimate is also the Section 812 with-CAAA scenario for that year;
it is effectively our ex post value.  The first estimated value is what
we call the "2002 Alternative Projection".  It is projected from the
1990 NEI with adjustment for growth and identified federal and local
regulatory activity.  This first estimated value is effectively our ex
ante value.  Differences between this estimated ex ante value and the
2002 NEI ex post estimate provide the essential results of the
reasonableness test for the current emissions estimation method.  The
second estimated value is the 2002 without CAAA projection incorporated
as the baseline case for the 812 study.  The without-CAAA scenario is
projected from the 1990 NEI by applying growth factors, but without
adjustment for regulatory activity; it represents a counterfactual
estimate, as if regulatory stringency were frozen at 1990 levels but
emissions activity were allowed to grow.  The estimate is included here
as a reference point, to assess the incremental impact of regulation
during 1990-2002, and to assess implications of the results for the 812
study.

Results and discussion

The results of the analysis are summarized in Exhibit 1 at the end of
this memo.  As noted above, the results are mixed, but generally tend to
support the contention that the method overstates emissions.  For two
pollutant-sector combinations, it appears the ex ante estimate, based on
projection from the 1990 NEI, closely simulates the ex post value from
the 2002 NEI, within five percent (e.g., NOx emissions for industrial
boilers and glass manufacturing).  For most categories, however, the
method overstates the ex post value, in some cases substantially (e.g.,
SO2 emissions from copper smelters and industrial boilers, PM emissions
from cement manufacturing, VOC emissions from refineries).  For two
categories, the method actually underestimates the ex post value,
although not by a large margin, between five and ten percent (e.g., NOx
emissions from cement and glass manufacturing).  We have examined the
reasons for these results by sector, reported below.

When interpreting the results it is important to keep in mind several
factors:

New stack tests or the release of new emission factors by EPA can
produce emission changes in situations where no emission control device
has been added, or no operational changes have occurred.  In some cases,
noted below, we believe updated emissions factors are a main reason
behind poor performance of the ex ante approach.

The base year emissions are less accurately determined or determined
differently  in the 1990 NEI than in the 2002 NEI.  Sometimes, the 1990
NEI estimate is actually from an earlier year that has been carried
forward to 1990 using an economic growth projection.

Reductions in emissions rates might not be reflected if controls that
might have been applied in the interim period are missed.

It is very difficult in the ex ante approach to predict the impact of
fuel switching to avoid exceeding permit limits or triggering PSD or new
source review provisions on a local level.  In some cases, noted below,
it appears that fuel switching may be an explanation for overestimates
of sulfur dioxide emissions projections.

As pointed out in the OAQPS white paper, capital turnover –
retirements and/or replacements - often leads to better emissions
efficiency.  In several cases noted below, we believe this is an
important omitted factor in the ex ante estimates.  Note also that we
did not attempt to account for NSPS or New Source Review in our
methods—capital turnover may, in fact, be the result of an effort to
respond to NSPS/NSR requirements.

It is difficult to ensure that all relevant state and local regulations
are included in our analysis.  While it is very difficult to assess the
impact of missing information in our retrospective analysis, this may
not be as large an issue for the  prospective application of the ex ante
method in the Section 812 prospective analysis, because the Regional
Planning Organizations have a strong incentive to accurately capture the
impact of all prospective regulation in their member states as part of
the regional haze planning process.  As noted above, RPOs are the main
source of information in the Second Prospective analysis for
"on-the-books" state and local regulations.

Auto Assembly Plants

The results for auto assembly plants in Exhibit 1 suggest that the
projection method is not capturing several developments in this industry
in the 1990 to 2002 period.  Our research suggests that there were no
significant regulatory changes between 1990 and 2002 affecting VOC
emissions for this industry, as indicated by the fact that the 2002
alternative projection and 2002 Without CAAA estimates are identical.
We may have missed some State/local regulations that went into effect
during the period, for example in non-attainment areas.  More likely,
the much lower 2002 NEI estimate appears to reflect capital turnover -
there were facility closures in some locations, and the new facilities
emit at lower NSPS rates.

It is also interesting to note that the growth factor applied in the
without CAAA and alternative projection are based on projected changes
in the Transportation Equipment sector (NAICS 336), which produces
higher growth factors than the change in U.S. car and truck production
from 1990 to 2002.  Changing the growth factor basis in this case would
produce a lower alternative projection, but would not approximate the
negative emissions trend observed from the 1990 to 2002 NEI.

Glass Manufacturing

The glass manufacturing results show a very close match between the 2002
NEI and the alternative projection, suggesting the projection method
works well for this industry.  The 2002 alternative projection applies a
40 percent NOx control efficiency (80 percent rule effectiveness) in
areas where the CAAA require RACT implementation (to glass furnaces).
The growth indicator for this sector is glass and glass products output.
 Growth factors vary by region, ranging from 0.99 (mid-Atlantic) to 1.7
(Mountain States).

Copper Smelters

The copper smelter industry results highlight a major issue with
virtually any projection method - it can be very difficult to predict a
major industry collapse.  During the 1990-2002 period, all but three
U.S. copper smelters shut down.  The key industry issue in the time
period is international competition in copper production.  As a result,
sulfur dioxide emissions dropped by almost 90 percent during this
period.  An additional factor contributing to the steep emissions drop
is that one of the smelters still operating underwent a major
modification during the mid-1990s that dramatically lowered SO2
emissions; the impact of this upgrade is not incorporated in the
alternative projection at this point, owing to uncertainty over whether
the upgrade was motivated by the CAAA regulation.

Another interesting insight is that, while application of a
retrospective activity factor ought to have captured this substantial
dropoff in copper smelter activity, in this case the Section 812 study
growth factor applied is too broad to have picked up this phenomenon.
The growth factor applied in the analysis is for Other Primary Metals
sector, which includes all non-ferrous metals and foundries; copper
smelters were clearly an exception to the otherwise increasing activity
trend in the broader primary metals sector during this period.

Cement Manufacturing

The cement manufacturing results in Exhibit 1 indicate that the
projection method can yield very different outcomes across pollutants
for the same industry.  The results for NOx emissions indicate fairly
good agreement between the 2002 NEI and the alternative projection - the
alternative projection, in fact, underestimates emissions growth of the
1990-2002 period.

For SO2, however, the alternative projection fails to capture a
substantial reduction in emissions over the 1990-2002 period.  There
were SO2 emission limits imposed for cement kilns during this period,
but very few add-on control devices were installed because the nature of
the manufacturing process reduces SO2 emissions, so few individual
plants violated the limits.  The apparent SO2 reductions from 1990 to
2002 may actually be an indication of better emission measurement
methods, suggesting the 1990 NEI is biased high, or from switching to
lower sulfur coal prompted by non-CAAA motivations, for example, the
rapid adoption of low-cost, low-sulfur Powder River basin coal over this
period.

The results for particulate matter, however, indicate a complete failure
of the method.  There are only three possible reasons for this large
discrepancy: inaccurate activity indices, overestimated emissions rates,
or omitted regulations.  We can probably eliminate the activity factor
explanation, because that would have affected the apparently accurate
NOx emissions estimates as well.  We may have failed to identify
regulations during this period, but any regulation that had such a
dramatic effect would be difficult to miss, suggesting this could be a
contributing factor at best.  We conclude that the large discrepancy in
the PM estimates results from misestimated emissions in the 1990
inventory.  It is also interesting to note that almost 70 percent of the
PM emissions in 1990 are in New York State; one hypothesis is that New
York may have either used a very high emissions factor in 1990, passed a
regulation that we failed to identify, or both.

Overall, the results for this industry suggest to us that the best
strategy for improving prospective emissions estimates is to carefully
examine emissions factors, which are pollutant specific, rather than
attempt to make adjustments to activity factors.  In this industry,
attempting to adjust activity factors might improve estimates for one
pollutant while reducing accuracy for another pollutant.

Petroleum Refining

The results for petroleum refining indicate that the projection method
is capable of capturing the effect of regulation, but that the effective
application of static emissions rates in the base case neglects capital
turnover.  During the period 1990 to 2002, 47 refineries shut down.
Many of these were smaller facilities, and the remaining refineries
generally increased capacity to compensate.  Production increased
relatively slowly, as evidenced by the 2002 Without CAAA estimate being
only modestly higher than the 1990 NEI estimate.  Note that NOx
emissions at these facilities are driven by fuel use, while VOC
emissions are driven by throughput estimates.  It appears that during
the 1990-2002 period fuel intensity per unit of production declined, an
observation consistent with the explicit modeling of energy efficiency
as a result of capital turnover in the AEO modeling on which the
activity estimates are based.

At the same time, CAAA regulations were put in place for this industry.
The alternative projection includes the effect of petroleum refinery
MACT standards on VOC emissions from process vents and fugitives.  NOx
controls are applied to process heaters in 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas and the Northeast OTR.  Note that the estimates presented in
Exhibit 1 include emissions from refinery processes, but exclude tankage
and boilers.  The effect of these regulations is to reduce the
alternative projection relative to the 2002 Without CAAA estimate, for
both NOx and VOC emissions.

The 2002 NEI estimates, however, are substantially lower than the
alternative estimate for both pollutants.  We believe that two factors
are behind this result.  First, consolidation of the industry likely led
to the better environmental performance - the remaining refineries were
likely be more efficient, and therefore have lower emissions rates.
Second, capacity expansions at these plants may have been made with less
polluting technologies, perhaps in response to regulation or anticipated
regulation at the local level that we failed to identify.  The major
effect on emissions rates of these factors was not captured by the
projection method.

Industrial Boilers

Industrial boiler activity dropped in the Midwest RPO during the
1990-2002 period, as evidenced by the 2002 without CAAA estimate for NOx
being lower than the 1990 estimate.  It appears that, in addition to
reductions in activity, some switching to lower sulfur fuels also
occurred, leading to a steeper decline in sulfur emissions than activity
factors alone would suggest.  The activity factors reflect this shift -
this region has declines in industrial boiler coal and residual oil use
during the period with increases in some other fuels - and therefore the
alternative estimate captures some of this effect.  But not all of the
effect on SO2 and PM emissions is reflected.

The alternative projection estimates for NOx are actually very close to
the 2002 NEI estimate, reflecting the application of NOx RACT to boilers
in 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas during this period.  However, we
applied no SO2 or PM controls for the 1990 to 2002 period.

Recommendations for Modifying the Section 812 Emissions Inventories

In light of our findings, we recommend the following adjustments be made
to the Section 812 emissions inventories:

Re-estimate copper smelter sulfur dioxide emissions for the Without CAAA
case.  As currently configured, the Without CAAA case for this sector
does not reflect the very steep drop-off in activity that occurred in
this industry.  Without adjustment, the large differences in the 2002
Without CAAA and 2002 NEI emissions for this sector (over 300,000 tons)
would be attributed to the CAAA, which would significantly overestimate
both costs and benefits of the Amendments.  We suggest the 2002 Without
CAAA be re-estimated by examining the potential emissions at the one
smelter that installed controls during the 1990-2002 period, resulting
in a national estimate that would be somewhat higher than the national
2002 NEI that is the basis of the With CAAA scenario.  We further
recommend that the re-estimated 2002 Without CAAA value then be used to
project the 2010 and 2020 Without CAAA scenario for this sector.  We
also suggest that an alternative approach be considered for post-2002
projections that make use of a more specific (copper) growth indicator
for this sector.

Re-examine direct PM emissions estimates from the 1990 NEI for cement
manufacturing and industrial boilers.  The results suggest that the 1990
NEI might be employing very outdated emissions estimates for 1990 for
these sectors; with better information, it might be possible to improve
the accuracy of these retrospective estimates.  Other sectors might also
need to be examined for the same effect.

Examine the causes of fuel switching at cement manufacturers and Midwest
industrial boilers.  The phenomenon of increased penetration of
low-cost, low-sulfur PRB coal is well-established. The rate of fuel
switching in some parts of the country, notably the Midwest and likely
including New York, where there is a high concentration of cement
manufacturing activity and emissions, could be expected to be quite
high, and this effect ought not be attributed to the CAAA.

Consider assessing the impact of consolidation in petroleum refining on
emissions rates in the Without CAAA case.  The emissions projection
techniques applied to this sector appear to have missed the effects of
capital turnover that may be associated with consolidation of petroleum
refining.  One possibly fruitful research objective would be to assess
whether emissions rates in 1990 might have been higher than industry
averages at those plants that closed during the 1990's.  If they were,
consolidation would have led to reductions in the overall emissions
intensity of production in the industry.  This would be an interesting
finding, although in the end it may have little impact on the emissions
estimates we use.  For example, while some studies have concluded that
consolidation was the results of economic forces unrelated to the CAAA,
the role of the CAAA in petroleum refining consolidation might never be
conclusively determined; it is therefore not clear whether a true
Without CAAA scenario might have resulted in at least some of these
potentially less efficient plants staying in operation.  At minimum, it
will be important to ensure that in this sector the difference in
emissions between the 2002 Without CAAA and the 2002 With CAAA emissions
estimates, which will be counted as part of the benefits of the CAAA, is
fully costed and also attributed to the impact of the CAAA. Exhibit 1:
Results of Emissions Simulation Exercise

Sector	Reference Point or Estimate	Emissions (tons per year)

SO2	NOx	VOC	PM2.5	PM10

Auto Assembly Plants	1990 NEI

	42,200

	2002 NEI (With CAAA)

	34,150

	2002 Alternative Projection

	61,250

	2002 Without CAAA

	61,250

Glass Manufacturing	1990 Emissions

58,507

2002 NEI (with CAAA)

61,348

2002 Alternative Projection

58,674

2002 Without CAAA

70,454

	Copper Smelters	1990 Emissions	323,390

	2002 NEI (with CAAA)	35,000

	2002 Alternative Projection	335,824*

	2002 Without CAAA	335,824

Cement Manufacturing	1990 Emissions	173,203	135,475

44,862	164,230

	2002 NEI (with CAAA)	118,510	154,900

1,630	6,125

	2002 Alternative Projection	199,700	140,275

52,550	192,320

	2002 Without CAAA	199,700	154,250

52,550	192,320

Petroleum Refineries	1990 Emissions

179,039	199,450

	2002 NEI (with CAAA)

128,250	104,103

	2002 Alternative Projection

165,371	175,040

	2002 Without CAAA

181,091	212,963

Industrial Boilers	1990 Emissions	707,190	185,455

16,270

	 (Midwest RPO states:	2002 NEI (with CAAA)	242,275	125,150

3,980

	  IL, IN, MI,OH, WI)	2002 Alternative Projection	439,450	130,212

12,120

2002 Without CAAA	439,450	161,520

12,120

	NOTES: The memo text explains the derivation of the four reference
points and estimates.  All estimates are national (48-state) in scope,
except where noted. 	Shaded cells indicate comparisons where growth
projections are based on AEO fuel use rather than throughput estimates.
See text for explanation of copper smelter alternative projection.

 The document, "Improving EPA Emissions Forecasting For Regulatory
Impact Analyses" describes an interim approach for forecasting emissions
to future years to be used in regulatory analyses, and is available at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/articles.html

 Note that different methods and data are used in the Section 812 study
than in the PM NAAQS RIA for emissions projections.  The RIA is based on
REMI/EGAS output, which has more detailed industry sector output data,
while the 812 study is based on AEO 2005, which is more highly
aggregated but based on integrated population, fuels use, and economic
output modeling.

 Note that, because we use retrospective emissions driver data, the
estimate is not a true ex ante perspective value.

 Note that for this analysis we did not consider the impact of the
interim or final hazardous waste MACT rule on this sector.  That rule
took effect after 2002, but some facilities may have complied early.
Many cement kilns burn hazardous waste with other fuels, and therefore
would be subject to the rule.  While the rule's focus is on HAPs, there
are some co-control benefits for PM.

 Note that our recommendations focus on adjustments necessary to avoid
biasing the assessment of benefits and costs when we ultimately compare
the With CAAA and Without CAAA results.  In cases where an estimation
bias exists in both scenarios, the need for an adjustment is less
urgent.  This differs from the perspective in the OAQPS White Paper,
where accuracy in the absolute level of emissions is critically
important to projecting the likelihood of PM NAAQS attainment.  Also,
evaluating the utility of any potential adjustment to the 812
inventories should consider both the relative significance of the
source/pollutant component within the overall 812 inventories as well as
the severity of any inconsistencies such adjustments may lead to with
respect to the AEO energy driver data and other inputs.

				  PAGE  2

																			  PAGE  10

Confidential / Not for Release  |   draft date


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54049-54051]
[DOCID:fr13se06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 6, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER99-830-017; ER04-925-011.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.; Merrill Lynch Capital
Services, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. submits an errata to
amend its 7/24/06 filing to include Merrill Lynch Capital Services,
Inc. to its notice of change in status.
    Filed Date: 08/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1610-017.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Southwestern
Pub. Svc. Co., submits revised tariff sheets to its, Second Revised
Volume No. 3.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-2738-006; ER99-1004-007; ER00-2740-006; ER01-
1721-004; ER02-564-004.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC; Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Entergy
Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Nuclear
Generation Co. et al., submits modifications to its market based rate
tariffs pursuant to FERC's 7/31/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1178-004; ER05-1191-004.
    Applicants: Gila River Power, L.P.; Union Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Gila River Power, LP and Union Power Partners, LP
submits a Notice of Material Change of Status.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-199-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits Substitute Original
Sheet 509 et al., to Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-320-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc., on behalf of Southwestern
Public Service Company submits Rate Schedule 133--Transaction Agreement
for Total Requirements Power Service with Tri-County Electric
Cooperative Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-900-002.
    Applicants: Vermont Electric Power Company; Vermont Transco, LLC.
    Description: Vermont Electric Power Company et al., submits revised
FERC Rate Schedules 2-6 to comply with Order 614.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-917-002.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits an errata to its 8/21/06 filing of
their Open Access Transmission Tariff, in compliance with FERC's 7/13/
06 Letter Order.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1222-001.
    Applicants: PEAK Capital Management, LLC.
    Description: PEAK Capital Management, LLC, submits a statement that
declares that none of its officers work for any other entity other than
PEAK.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060815-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1222-002.
    Applicants: PEAK Capital Management, LLC.
    Description: PEAK Capital Management, LLC, submits a statement that
its partners do not work for any other entity other than affiliation
with any entities within any energy industry.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060828-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1334-001.
    Applicants: Spindle Hill Energy, LLC.
    Description: Spindle Hill Energy, LLC, submits amendment to its 8/
3/06 filed application.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1348-001.
    Applicants: Katmai Energy, LLC.
    Description: Katmai Energy, LLC, submits an Amendment to the
Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waiver and Blanket
Authority.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1433-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Companies submits its Annual Filing of
Revised Accruals for Post Retirement Benefits Other Than Pensions.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1434-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits a non-conforming Market
Participate Service Agreement with North America Power Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1435-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a Service
Agreement and an Interconnection Agreement with Lathrop Irrigation
District.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1436-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc as agent for Entergy Operating
Companies submits a Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service
Agreements with Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1437-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: E.ON U.S., LLC on behalf of Louisville Gas and
Electric Co and Kentucky Utilities Co submits an unexecuted Firm Point-
to-Point transmission service agreement with the Indiana Municipal
Power Agency.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1438-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities
Company; LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Co, Kentucky Utilities Co
and LG&E Energy Marketing Inc submit proposed tariffs for cost-based
sales of capacity and energy.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1439-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to their Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1440-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.;
Midwest ISO Transmission Owners; Midwest Stand Transmission Companies.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
et al submit proposed revisions to the Midwest ISO Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1441-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an unexecuted Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with
Consumers Energy Co et al.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1442-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company.
    Description: American Transmission Company LLC submits its
Amendment 2 to the Amended and Restated Generation-Transmission
Interconnection Agreement with Wisconsin Electric Power Co et al.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1443-000: ER04-372-005.
    Applicants: Pennsylvania Power Company; Metropolitan Edison
Company; Pennsylvania Electric Company; The Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Company; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Electric Company.
    Description: FirstEnergy Service Co on behalf of Pennsylvania Power
co et al submit an initial and amended market-based rate tariff and
notice of cancellation.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1444-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits its unexecuted Amended and Restated Generator Interconnection
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1445-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities, Inc.
    Description: UGI Utilities, Inc submits proposed revised tariff
sheets to their FERC Open Access Transmission Tariff administered by
PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1447-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp's submits proposed revisions to its OATT in
compliance with Orders 2006-B and 676.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1455-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits its Participation Power
Agreement with Mid-Kansas Electric Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1456-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits its Third Revised Rate
Schedule 300, Control Area Services Agreement with the Missouri Joint
Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1457-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities
Company.
    Description: E.ON US, LLC on behalf of Louisville Gas and Electric
Co et al. submits unexecuted agreements with Illinois Municipal
Electric Agency.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1458-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities
Company.
    Description: Louisville Gas & Electric Co et al submit an
unexecuted Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission
Service et al with East Kentucky Power Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1459-000.
    Applicants: NRG Energy Center Dover LLC.
    Description: NRG Energy Center Dover LLC submits its proposed FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2 and supporting cost data.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1460-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Solutions Supply, Ltd.
    Description: Entergy Solutions Supply, Ltd submits a Notice of
Cancellation of their FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1461-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Revised
Sheets to its Facilities Agreement with Southern California Public
Power Authority.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060906-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 21, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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. E6-15149 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59645-59646]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0722; Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Change of Controlling Agency for Restricted Areas; California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action updates the name of the controlling agency for
restricted areas R-2502N Fort Irwin, CA; R-2505 China Lake, CA; R-2506
China Lake South, CA; R-2508 Complex, CA; R-2515 Muroc Lake, CA and R-
2524 Trona, CA to read ``FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.'' This is an administrative change only as there are no changes to
the dimensions, time of designation or activities conducted within the
affected restricted areas.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, January 8, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by amending the controlling agency name for the following
Restricted Areas located in California: R-2502N Fort Irwin, CA, R-2505
China Lake, CA, R-2506 China Lake South, CA, R-2508 Complex, CA, R-2515
Muroc Lake, CA, and R-2524 Trona, CA. The controlling agency for these
restricted areas is changed from ``FAA, Hi-Desert TRACON, Edwards AFB,
CA'' to ``FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB, CA.''
    This is an administrative change to update the name of the
controlling agency for the above listed restricted areas. It does not
affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted
within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this action only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the descriptions of restricted areas to reflect current
facility names.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the
descriptions of the affected restricted areas to update the controlling
agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of
designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.25  [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2502N Fort Irwin, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
    ``Controlling agency. FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.''
* * * * *

R-2505 China Lake, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
    ``Controlling agency. FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.''

R-2506 China Lake South, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
    ``Controlling agency. FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.''
* * * * *

R-2508 Complex, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
    ``Controlling agency. FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.''
* * * * *

R-2515 Muroc Lake, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
    ``Controlling agency. FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.''
* * * * *

R-2524 Trona, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
    ``Controlling agency. FAA, Joshua Control Facility, Edwards AFB,
CA.''
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-23662 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3167-3168]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8163; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-2]

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Thermopolis, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Hot Springs County Airport, Thermopolis,
WY, to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures
at the airport, for the safety and management of aircraft within the
National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Hot Spring County Airport,
Thermopolis, WY.

History

    On November 4, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hot Springs County
Airport, Thermopolis, WY. (81 FR 76886) Docket FAA-2016-8163.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 4.8-mile radius of the Hot Springs County
Airport, Thermopolis, WY with segments extending to 7 miles southwest
of the airport, and 5.5 miles northeast of the airport. This airspace
is established to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures
developed for the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Thermopolis, WY [New]

Hot Springs County Airport, WY
    (Lat. 43[deg]42'49'' N., long. 108[deg]23'23'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.8-mile radius of Hot Spring County Airport, and within
4.8 miles each side of the airport 230[deg] bearing extending from
the 4.8 mile radius to 7 miles southwest of the airport, and within
1.8 miles each side of the airport 055[deg] bearing extending from
the 4.8-mile radius to 5.5 miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 4, 2017.
Richard Roberts,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-00288 Filed 1-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6409-6410]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The date of May 2, 2019 has been established for the FIRM and,
where applicable, the supporting FIS report

showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Tulsa County, Oklahoma and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1802
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Tulsa..........................  Stormwater Design Office, 2317
                                          South Jackson Street, Suite
                                          302, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1753
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Houston........................  Public Works and Engineering
                                          Department, Floodplain
                                          Management Office, 1002
                                          Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor,
                                          Houston, TX 77002.
City of Missouri City..................  Development Services
                                          Department, 1522 Texas
                                          Parkway, Missouri City, TX
                                          77489.
City of South Houston..................  City Hall, 1018 Dallas Street,
                                          South Houston, TX 77587.
Unincorporated Areas of Harris County..  Harris County Engineering
                                          Department, Permit Division,
                                          10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite
                                          120, Houston, TX 77092.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-03370 Filed 2-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48842-48844]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0580; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-2]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Mesquite, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at
Mesquite, TX. Establishment of an air traffic control tower at Mesquite
Metro Airport

has made this action necessary for the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Mesquite Metro Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2012-0580/Airspace Docket No. 12-
ASW-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice of proposed
rulemaking must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-0580/Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-2.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ``ADDRESSES'' section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace from the surface up
to but not including 2,000 feet MSL within a 3.5-mile radius of
Mesquite Metro Airport, Mesquite, TX, with a segment extending from the
3.5-mile radius to 4.1 miles south of the airport. Controlled airspace
is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Mesquite Metro
Airport, Mesquite, TX.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9W,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and
effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Mesquite, TX [New]

Mesquite, Mesquite Metro Airport, TX (Lat. 32[deg]44'49'' N., long.
96[deg]31'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 2,000 feet MSL within a 3.5-mile radius of Mesquite Metro
Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 181[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.1 miles south of
the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times

established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates
and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on July 26, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-19448 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17615-17616]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0039; OMB No. 1660-0006]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; National Flood Insurance Program Policy Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 30 Day Notice of Reinstatement and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of

its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden,
invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a
reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information
collection for which approval has expired. FEMA will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission
will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories
of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and
resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data
collection instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Joycelyn Collins, Underwriting Branch Program Analyst, Federal
Insurance Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP is authorized by Public Law 90-448
(1968) and expanded by Public Law 93-234 (1973). The National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 requires that FEMA provide flood insurance at
full actuarial rates reflecting the complete flood risk to structures
built or substantially improved on or after the effective date for the
initial Flood Insurance Rate Map for the community, or after December
31, 1974, whichever is later, so that the risks associated with
buildings in flood-prone areas are borne by those located in such areas
and not by the taxpayers at large. In accordance with Public Law 93-
234, the purchase of flood insurance is mandatory when Federal or
federally-related financial assistance is being provided for
acquisition or construction of buildings located, or to be located,
within FEMA-identified special flood hazard areas of communities that
participate in the NFIP.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on December 16, 2020 at 85 FR 81481 with a 60-day
public comment period. No comments were received. This information
collection expired on April 30, 2020. FEMA is requesting a
reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information
collection for which approval has expired. The purpose of this notice
is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information
collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for
review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Flood Insurance Program Policy Forms.
    Type of information collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
    OMB Number: 1660-0006.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Forms 086-0-1 and 086-0-1T, Flood
Insurance Application; FEMA Forms 086-0-2 and 086-0-2T, Flood Insurance
Cancellation/Nullification Request Form; FEMA Forms 086-0-3 and 086-3T,
Flood Insurance General Change Endorsement; FEMA Form 086-0-4, V-Zone
Risk Factor Rating Form and Instructions (discontinued October 16,
2019, due to insufficient use); and FEMA Form 086-0-5T, Flood Insurance
Preferred Risk Policy and Newly Mapped Application.
    Abstract: To provide for the availability of policies for flood
insurance, policies are marketed and administered through the
facilities of licensed insurance agents or brokers in the various
states. Applications, general change requests, and cancellations from
agents or brokers are forwarded to a direct servicing agent designated
as fiscal agent by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
referred to as NFIP Direct. Upon receipt and examination of the
application, general change request, cancellation, and required
premium, the servicing company issues or updates the appropriate
Federal flood insurance policy.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal
Government; Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions;
and Farms.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 409,781.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 409,781.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 62,196.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $2,335,459.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $9,360,407.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Senior Manager, Records Management Branch, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-06875 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10747-10748]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC08-588-000; FERC-588]

Commision Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Extension

February 21, 2008.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by April 28,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed collection of information can be
obtained from Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed
either in paper format or electronically. Those parties filing
electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filings,
the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to Docket No. IC08-
588-000.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at (http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp). To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-588 ``Emergency Natural Gas Transportation, Sale
and Exchange Transactions'' (OMB No. 1902-0144) is used by the
Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Sections 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (Pub. L. 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w) and
provisions of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U.S.C.
3301-3432. Under the NGA, a natural gas company must obtain Commission
approval to engage in the transportation, sale or exchange of natural
gas in interstate commerce. However, Section 7(c) exempts from
certificate requirements ``temporary acts or operations for which the
issuance of a certificate will not be required in the public
interest.'' The NGPA also provides for non-certificated interstate
transactions involving intrastate pipelines and local distribution
companies.
    A temporary operation, or emergency, is defined as any situation in
which an actual or expected shortage of gas supply would require an
interstate pipeline company, intrastate pipeline, or local distribution
company, or Hinshaw pipeline to curtail deliveries of gas or provide
less than the projected level of service to the customer. The natural
gas companies file the necessary information with the Commission so
that it may determine if the transaction/operation qualifies for
exemption. A report within forty-eight hours of the commencement of the
transportation, sale or exchange, a request to extend the sixty-day
term of the emergency transportation, if needed, and a termination
report are required. The data required to be filed for the forty-eight
hour report is specified by 18 CFR 284.270.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year approval of the
collection of data. This is a mandatory information collection
requirement.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of          Number of       Average burden
   respondents       responses per        hours per       Total annual
     annually          resondent           respose        burden hours
(1)                            (2)                (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              8                  1                 10                80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total cost to respondents is $4,123.00 (80 hours
divided by 2,080 hours per employee per year times $126,384 per year
average salary per employee = $4,861.00 (rounded)).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology e.g.
permitting electronic submission of responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3724 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59244-59245]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0003; PDA-37(R)]

Hazardous Materials: New York City Permit Requirements for
Transportation of Certain Hazardous Materials

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice, and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is reopening the period for comments on the American
Trucking Associations, Inc.'s (ATA) application for a preemption
determination concerning the requirements of the New York City Fire
Department for a permit to transport certain hazardous materials by
motor vehicles through New York City, or for transshipment from New
York City, and the fee for the permit.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on, or before
November 2, 2015, and these comments will be considered before an
administrative determination is issued by PHMSA's Chief Counsel.

ADDRESSES: All documents in this proceeding, including the comments
submitted by the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), may be reviewed
in the Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. All documents in this
proceeding are also available on the U.S. Government Regulations.gov
Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments must refer to Docket No.
PHMSA-2014-0003 and may be submitted to the docket in writing or
electronically. Mail or hand deliver three copies of each written
comment to the above address. If you wish to receive confirmation of
receipt of your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
To submit comments electronically, log onto the U.S. Government
Regulations.gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Use the Search
Documents section of the home page and follow the instructions for
submitting comments. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (70 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Lopez, Office of Chief
Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Facsimile No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ATA applied for an administrative
determination concerning whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts requirements of
the New York City Fire Department for a permit to transport certain
hazardous materials by motor vehicle through New York City, or for
transshipment from New York City, and the fee for the permit. PHMSA
published notice of ATA's application in the Federal Register on April
17, 2014. 79 FR 21838. On June 2, 2014, the comment period closed
without any interested parties submitting comments. On April 27, 2015,
we published a notice of delay in

processing ATA's application in order to conduct additional fact-
finding and legal analysis in response to the application. 80 FR 23328.
In order to ensure PHMSA has all of the relevant information before
making a determination, we sent a letter to the FDNY and requested that
it submit comments as to whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law preempts the New York City requirements that are the
subject of this proceeding. On August 20, 2015, the FDNY submitted its
comments on ATA's application. Therefore, we are reopening the comment
period in this proceeding to provide interested parties the opportunity
to address any of the issues raised by the FDNY in its comments.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2015.
Joseph Solomey,
Senior Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-24880 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

	   Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 21, 2000

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-8256

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no

additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. (AVIANCA)				Date
Filed:  November 6, 2000

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to serve Aruba as an
intermediate point on authorized scheduled Colombia-U.S. services.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Robert Papkin<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  The applicant requested expedited action on its
application and informed us that it had polled the parties serviced with
its application and that none indicated any objection to a shortened
answer period or to its application.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  November 21, 2000

Effective dates of authority granted:  November 21, 2000  -  November
21, 2001

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  U.S.-Colombia Air
Transport Agreement

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

 X  Standard exemption conditions (attached)        __ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order   -  -  )

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

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

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

												        Appendix A

FOREIGN AIR CARRIER CONDITIONS OF AUTHORITY

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the holder shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are:

   (a)  based on its operations in international air transportation
that, according to the contract of carriage, include a point in the
United States as a point of origin, point of destination, or agreed
stopping place, or for which the contract of carriage was purchased in
the United States; or

   (b)  based on a claim under any international agreement or treaty
cognizable in any court or other tribunal of the United States.

In this condition, the term "international air transportation" means
"international transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention,
except that all States shall be considered to be High Contracting
Parties for the purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, comply (except as otherwise
provided in the applicable bilateral agreement) with the Department's
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended).

(41301/40109) 9/98


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75766-75767]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM14-2-000]

Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural
Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; data request to Independent
System Operators (ISOs) and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs).

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

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2014, pursuant to authority delegated to the
Director, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, a data request was
issued to each ISO and RTO regarding the effect on the reliable and
efficient operations of natural gas-fired generators of the current 9
a.m. CCT start to the Gas Day. The requests seek data from the ISOs/
RTOs with respect to derates by natural gas generators during the
morning ramp period.

DATES: Responses to the data request must be filed on or before January
12, 2015 in Docket No. RM14-2-000. Comments on the responses to the
data request must be filed in the same docket within 10 days of the
data request response, on or before January 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Responses and Comments, identified by docket number, may be
filed in the following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting responses and
comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Fernandez (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Caroline Daly Wozniak (Technical Information), Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The data requests can be obtained over the
Internet from the Commission's eLibrary system (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) under Docket No. RM14-2-000 or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426. The full text of the data requests are available
on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format. To access these documents
in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of
this document in the docket number field.
    All responses and comments will be placed in the Commission's
public files in Docket No. RM14-2-000, and may be viewed, printed, or
downloaded remotely from the eLibrary system or obtained from the
Commission's Public Reference Room. The data responses and comments are
not required to be served on other commenters or entities.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web
site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support
at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29701 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P