[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21908-21911]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8852]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0882; FRL-9656-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Streamlining Amendments to the Plan Approval Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant limited approval to a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on April 14, 2009. The
revision pertains to PADEP's plan approval requirements for the
construction, modification, and operation of sources, and is primarily
intended to streamline the process for minor permitting actions. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0882 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0882, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0882. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On April 14, 2009, PADEP
submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
proposed revisions consist of amendments to the plan approval
requirements for the construction, modification, reactivation, and
operation of sources.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Generally speaking, anyone constructing or operating a source in
Pennsylvania that emits pollutants into the air must comply with the
general requirement to obtain a ``plan approval'' prior to construction
as outlined in 25 Pa. Code 127, Subchapters A and B. These subchapters
are generally considered the state's minor New Source Review (NSR)
program covering minor sources as well as minor changes at major
sources. Major sources are subject to the additional requirements of
subchapters D Prevention Significant Deterioration (PSD) and E
(nonattainment NSR). Subchapter E also includes additional provisions
relating to minor changes at major sources for ozone precursors
Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds (NOx and VOCs). A plan
approval is a permit that authorizes construction, installation, or
modification of any air pollution source. In evaluating the plan
approval application, PADEP checks to see that both the operation of
the source and the control equipment installed to reduce air pollution
meet the applicable technical and engineering requirements. The public
is given an opportunity to comment on the plan approval application. In
addition to being a permit to construct, the plan approval provides
temporary authorization for the source to operate to assure that the
equipment functions properly. This temporary authorization is known as
the ``shakedown'' period.
    The plan approval regulations that are the subject of this proposed
action are codified at 25 Pa. Code 127, Subchapter B (relating to
general requirements for all plan approvals). EPA last took action on
these provisions on July 30, 1996. Pennsylvania adopted the amendments
being proposed in this action, and published notice of final rulemaking
in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on May 24, 2008. The primary purpose of
the amendments is to streamline the permitting process by eliminating
some of the administrative burden and costs associated with processing
minor permitting actions, while preserving the right of the public to
review and comment on those proposed actions. The proposed amendments
generally affect five regulations: Section 127.12b, pertaining to
``shakedown'' periods for new or modified sources; section 127.12d,
pertaining to completeness determinations; sections 127.44 and 127.45,
pertaining to public notice requirements; and section 127.48,
pertaining to conferences and hearings. The specific revisions are
discussed in detail below.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

A. 25 Pa. Code 127.12b: Plan Approval Terms and Conditions

    Section 127.12b(d), as approved by EPA on July 30, 1996, authorizes
a temporary ``shakedown'' period for new and modified sources and air
cleaning equipment for a period of 180 days pending issuance of a state
operating permit or a Title V permit, ``* * * to permit the evaluation
of the air contamination aspects of the source'' (see section
127.12b(d)). The regulation as currently approved in Pennsylvania's SIP
also allows for limited extensions of this period, with each extension
limited to 120 days. The proposed revision increases the permissible
duration of the extensions to 180 days.

B. 25 Pa. Code 127.12d: Completeness Determination

    The proposed revisions incorporate new requirements into the
Pennsylvania SIP that outline PADEP's obligations with respect to
determining whether an applicant has submitted an administratively
complete application, and notifying the applicant of that decision.
These requirements are codified at section 127.12d(a) thru (c). Section
127.12d(a) requires PADEP to make a completeness determination and
provide notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the
application. Section 127.12d(b) establishes guidelines for what
constitutes an administratively complete application.

In the event an application is deemed to be incomplete, section
127.12d(c) requires PADEP to notify the applicant of the specific
deficiency, and to return the application and fees to the applicant if
the requested information is not submitted within ten (10) working days
of being notified by PADEP that the application is incomplete. These
regulations as proposed by PADEP are consistent with CAA requirements,
and are in fact more prescriptive than their Federal counterparts at 40
CFR 51.166(q)(1).

C. 25 Pa. Code 127.44: Public Notice and 25 Pa. Code 127.45: Contents
of Notice

    The public notice requirements of section 127.44 as currently
approved in the Pennsylvania SIP make no distinction between major and
minor permitting actions--the requirements are the same. Pennsylvania
adopted the proposed revisions to the public notice requirements of
section 127.44 (and 127.45, below) in an effort to streamline the
process for minor permitting actions and allow PADEP to focus its
limited resources on major permitting actions.
    In the current SIP, section 127.44 sections (a)(1) thru (6) list
the types of plan approvals for which the public notice requirements
apply. These include section (a)(5): ``Other sources required to obtain
plan approval,'' which has the effect of applying the notice
requirements to all plan approval actions equally. Pennsylvania has a
robust minor New Source Review (NSR) program. Very few sources escape
the requirement to obtain a plan approval, and every plan approval is
subject to public notice requirements. Prior to these revisions,
significant time and resources were being spent on relatively minor
permitting actions. The proposed revisions involve the bifurcation of
the notice requirements into a new section 127.44(a) which applies to
minor actions, and a new section 127.44(b) which applies to major
actions as well as any action for which PADEP determines that
significant public interest exists. The remaining unchanged sections
were re-ordered sequentially to allow for the bifurcation.
    Pursuant to the proposed amendments, under the revised section
127.44(a) PADEP will publish a ``notice of receipt and intent to
issue'' in the Pa. Bulletin for each plan approval application relating
to a minor permitting action. PADEP has, as a policy, generally
published two notices for all plan approval actions: one upon receipt
of an application, and one of intent to issue a proposed plan approval.
Under the proposed revisions, proposed plan approval actions that are
subject to section 127.44(a) will be issued at the end of the public
comment period without further notice, unless significant public
comments are received. The notice requirements for major actions, now
at section 127.44(b), were not substantively amended. We read the
requirements of section 127.44(f) to apply to all plan approvals that
are subject to section 127.44. These include the requirement that the
application materials be made available for review in the region
affected by the project, and that a 30-day public comment period be
established (127.44(f)(1) and (f)(2) respectively).
    In the proposed revisions, section 127.45 was similarly bifurcated
to incorporate separate requirements for minor and major actions. As
with the notice requirements of section 127.44, the content
requirements of section 127.45 for permitting actions considered by
PADEP to be major, (now at 127.45(b)), were not substantively modified.
For minor actions, section 127.45(a) outlines what must be included in
each ``notice of receipt and intent to issue.'' These requirements
include: the name and address of the applicant and the location of the
source, a brief discussion of the proposed action including a
description of the source, the control technology, the conditions being
placed in the permit, and the type and quantity of air contaminants
being emitted, as well as a point of contact at PADEP, and the
statement that a person may oppose the proposed plan approval by filing
a written protest with the appropriate regional office (see proposed
section 127.45(a)). The requirements for minor permitting actions under
this section do not vary significantly from the requirements for major
actions. The primary differences are that section 127.45(b) requires a
description of increment consumption (where applicable), and a
description of the procedures for reaching a final decision on the
proposed plan approval, including the end date for receipt of written
protests, procedures for requesting a hearing, and other procedures for
public involvement in the final decision (see proposed section
127.45(b)(6)). The result of the proposed revisions to sections 127.44
and 127.45 is that for minor permitting actions, public notice of the
proposed action will be less detailed than for major actions, will be
provided once, and only in the Pa. Bulletin (which publishes online and
in print).
    The Federal requirements with regard to public availability of
information are codified at 40 CFR 51.161. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.161(a) requires that ``[t]he public information must include the
agency's analysis of the effect of construction or modification on
ambient air quality, including the agency's proposed approval or
disapproval.'' EPA believes that to some extent, the intent of section
51.161(a) was met in sections 127.45(a)(3) and (4) of Pennsylvania's
proposed SIP revision, which discuss the content of the public notice.
These sections require a description of the proposed construction or
modification, the control technology being installed, the conditions in
the proposed permit (with reference to applicable federal
requirements), and the type and quantity of air contaminants being
emitted. Nevertheless, the agency analysis required by 40 CFR 51.161(a)
is not explicitly required in the proposed SIP revision, nor do the
regulations of sections 127.44 and 127.45 require that the agency's
analysis be made available for public inspection in at least one
location, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.161(b)(1). Section 127.44(f)(1)
requires only that the application be made available. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to grant limited approval to PADEP's proposed revision. To
receive full approval, PADEP must adopt the explicit requirement that
the agency's analysis be included in the information provided to the
public for comment pursuant to 40 CFR 51.161(a), as well as the
requirement that the analysis be made available for public inspection
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.161(b)(1), and submit those changes to EPA as a
formal SIP revision.

D. 25 Pa. Code 127.48: Conferences and Hearings

    The regulations at section 127.48 contain the requirements
regarding public hearings or fact finding conferences on proposed plan
approvals. The PADEP may, at its discretion, hold such a hearing when
it is deemed necessary due to sufficient public impact or interest. The
proposed amendments to section 127.48(b) include some clarifying
language regarding hearing notices. More substantively, the amendments
include the requirement to publish notice ``* * * in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county in which the source is to be located
* * *''. The current SIP only requires that the notice be published in
the Pa. Bulletin or a newspaper. The regulations as amended in the
proposed SIP revision require both, and as such represent a
strengthening of the SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that with the one noted

exception, the proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code 127, Subchapter B meet
or exceed Federal requirements. EPA is proposing to grant limited
approval to the Pennsylvania SIP revision, which was submitted on April
14, 2009. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action regarding streamlining amendments to
Pennsylvania's plan approval process does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-8852 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD
                      OCTOBER 2011 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

               Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center
                 Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

                          Wednesday, October 19, 2011

10:30 AM*	Convene Public Meeting and Review Administrative Procedures  -  Jim Downing , Designated Federal Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor
           Introduction and Identification of Board Members  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D., HSRB Chair
	Welcome - Mary Greene, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of the Science Advisor
	Opening Remarks  -  Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA
	OPP Follow-up on Previous HSRB Recommendations  -  Mr. William Jordan, OPP, EPA

Session 1:	A completed Carroll-Loye Biological Research, Inc. (CLBR) study (No Mas 003) to evaluate the field repellent efficacy against mosquitoes of a product containing 16% para-methane-3,8-diol and 2% lemongrass oil.

10:50 AM 	EPA Science and Ethics Reviews  -  Clara Fuentes, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA) and Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
11:20 AM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
11:40 AM 	Public Comments
11:50 AM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board:

   * Is the CLBR completed study No Mas 003 sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to be used to estimate the duration of complete protection against mosquitoes provided by the tested repellent?

   *       Does available information support a determination that the study No Mas 003 was conducted in substantial compliance with 40 CFR Part 26, subparts K and L?

12:45  PM 	Lunch

Session 2:	A new scenario design and associated protocol from the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF-II), describing proposed research to monitor the dermal and inhalation of workers while pouring liquid antimicrobial pesticide products from both conventional and reduced-splash containers.

1:30 PM	EPA Science and Ethics Reviews  -  Mr. Tim Leighton (OPP, EPA) and Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
2:30 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
3:00 PM	Public Comments
3:15 PM	Break
3:30 PM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board:

If the AEATF liquid pour study proposal is revised as suggested in EPA's review and if the research is performed as described:

   * Is the research likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the exposure of individuals who manually pour liquid antimicrobial products?

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

5:00 PM	Adjournment

                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD
                          OCTOBER 2011 PUBLIC MEETING

               Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center
                 Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

                          Thursday, October 20, 2011

9:00 AM*	Convene Public Meeting and Review Administrative Procedures  -  Jim Downing (Designated Federal Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor)
           Introduction and Identification of Board Members  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)
	Follow-up from Previous Day  -  Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Session 1:	A new scenario design and associated protocols from the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) describing proposed research to measure dermal and inhalation exposure to workers who use closed system equipment to load liquid pesticide products from returnable and non-returnable containers.

9:15 AM	EPA Science and Ethics Reviews  -  Mr. Jeff Evans (OPP, EPA) and Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
10:00 AM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
10:30 AM	Public Comments
10:45 AM	Break
11:00 AM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board:

If the AHETF closed system liquid loading study proposal is revised as suggested in EPA's review and if the research is performed as described:

   * Is the research likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the exposure of workers using closed systems to load liquid pesticide products from returnable or non-returnable containers?

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

12:30 PM 	Lunch

Session 2:	A published report by Moiemen et al (2011) of an intentional exposure human study measuring dermal absorption of silver from the use of nanosilver-containing wound dressings to treat major burns.

1:30 PM 	EPA Science and Ethics Reviews  -  Jessica Ryman, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA) and Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
2:15 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair), EPA
2:40 PM 	Public Comments
2:50 PM	Break
3:05 PM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board:

         * Is the Moiemen (2011) study scientifically sound, providing reliable data?

         * If so, can the Moiemen (2011) study be used to support the Agency's conclusion that the dermal absorption factor for silver from nanosilver on human skin is less than 0.1%?

   *             Is there adequate information to support a determination that the study was conducted in substantial compliance procedures at least as protective as those at subparts A-L of 40 CFR Part 26?

4:30 PM	Adjournment


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45594-45595]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14406-000]

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene,
Protests, Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 14406-000.
    c. Date filed: May 9, 2012, and supplemented on July 11 and July
25, 2012.
    d. Applicant: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (San
Francisco PUC).
    e. Name of Project: University Mound Reservoir Renewable
Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed University Mound Reservoir Renewable
Hydroelectric Project would be located adjacent to the existing McLaren
Pumping Plant which is located at the Northwest corner of the
intersection at Bowdoin Street and Woosley Street in San Francisco,
California. The project would use the existing Crystal Springs
Pipelines (CSPL1 and CSPL2), which ultimately deliver water from the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's Water Supply and Treatment
Divisions transmission system (located in San Mateo County on the San
Francisco peninsula) to the University Mound Reservoir south and north
basins (located in San Francisco). The land on which all the project
structures are located is owned by the applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Doyle, Manager Energy
Infrastructure, Planning and Development, San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission, Power Enterprise Division, 1155 Market Street,
4th Floor, San Francisco, California 94103; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kim Carter, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.

    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as wells as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.43(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
filed in response to comments submitted by any resource agency, Indian
tribe, or person, must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of Project: The proposed University Mound Reservoir
Renewable Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) A new intake on
the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's existing 42-inch-
diameter Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 1, connecting to a new 24-inch-
diameter, 68-feet-long intake pipeline; (2) a new intake on the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission's existing 60-inch-diameter
Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2, connecting to a new 36-inch-diameter,
approximately 40-feet-long intake pipeline; (3) a new, 36.5 feet-wide
by 41.5 feet-long, 1-story Mission Style powerhouse, containing 3
turbine/generator units, each rated 80.3 kW, for a total installed
capacity of 240.9 kW; (4) a new 36-inch-diameter, 40-feet-long pipeline
that discharges to the 60-inch-diameter Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2;
(5) a new 24-inch-diameter, 67-feet-long pipeline that discharges to
the 42-inch-diameter Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 1; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual
generation of 1,586,494 kilowatt-hours.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, here P-14406, in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not
be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Notice of Intent -- A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
    p. Protests or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMMENTS'',
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing
the original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. An
additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.
    r. Waiver of Pre-filing Consultation: The applicant requested
agencies to support the waiver of the Commission's consultation
requirements under 18 CFR 4.38(c). In June 2011, the National Park
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advised by written
correspondence that they do not require further consultation. The Bay
Area Regional Water Quality Control Board advised that they had no
plans to send comments. The Office of Historic Preservation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency--Region 9, California Department of
Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Water
Resources Division of Dam Safety, and the California Division of Dam
Safety and Inspections were contacted by phone and verbally responded
that they will not be replying in writing, nor would they comment on
the application. Therefore, we intend to accept the consultation that
has occurred on this project during the pre-filing period and we intend
to waive pre-filing consultation under section 4.38(c), which requires,
among other things, conducting studies requested by resource agencies,
and distributing and consulting on a draft exemption application.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18773 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 21999-22000]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on December 6, 2007, vol. 72, no. 234, pages
68947-68948. 14 CFR part 17 sets forth procedures for filing
solicitation protests and contract claims in the FAA's Office of
Dispute Resolution for Acquisition.

DATES: Please submit comments by May 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: FAA Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and
Contact Disputes, 14 CFR Part 17.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0632.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 40 respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 20.5 hours per
response.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 820 hours annually.
    Abstract: 14 CFR part 17 sets forth procedures for filing
solicitation protests and contract claims in the FAA's Office of
Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and
legal information from protesters or claimants primarily through
written submissions.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
 [FR Doc. E8-8737 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 02:42 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/05/2010 10:21 AM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |4SLB MACT floor analysis
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney,
As we discussed on the phone, if the MACT floor analysis for 4SLB engines
included the data for engines >1000 HP, the resulting emission limit would be
42.1 ppm CO.  If the analysis is limited to engines <1000 HP, the resulting
emission limit is 47.0 ppm CO.  The data is in the attached spreadsheet.  The
sheets called "All Data" show all of the data for the 4SLB engines, and the
sheets called "top 12%" show the engines in the MACT floor and the emission
limit calculation.
(See attached file: 4SLB MACT Floor Analysis 6-23-2010.xls)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3078 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS 2. OMB control number b. None a 2060  0433 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. New collection b. X Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? X Yes No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 07 / 31 /_ 2003__

7. Title: NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production ( Final Rule revisions)

8. Agency form number( s) 1894.03 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Hazardous substances, Secondary Aluminum production, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements 10. Abstract Owners or operators of secondary aluminum production plants would comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) and maintain records of specific information needed by EPA to determine if compliance has been achieved.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 579 b. Total annual responses 1,360 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 120,228 d. Current OMB inventory 148,031 e. Difference ( 27,803) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change ( 27,803) 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 535 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 152 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 687 d. Current OMB inventory $ 687 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Notification 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission)

Name: John Schaefer, EPA. OAQPS/ MICG Phone: ( 919) 541 0296 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissionsederal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 27, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2003-16690, OST-2004-17363

__________________________________________________________________

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).

Joint Application of Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo, Inc. filed
11/19/2004 for:

XX  Waiver of the dormancy condition applicable to certain of Atlas’
U.S.-Brazil all-cargo frequencies.

Atlas and Polar seek a dormancy waiver for four of Atlas’ ten
U.S.-Brazil all-cargo frequencies.  By Notice of Action Taken dated
September 17, 2004, in docket OST-2002-11985, the Department granted
Atlas a dormancy waiver for four of its ten U.S.-Brazil all-cargo
frequencies through December 31, 2004.  The Joint Applicants now seek an
extension of Atlas’ current frequency dormancy waiver.

In support of their request, the Joint Applicants note that, by Order
2004-11-3, in the above-captioned dockets, the Department tentatively
granted Polar Air Cargo the authority to operate U.S.-Brazil all-cargo
services in place of Atlas Air.  In the event that the Department has
not issued a final order by the December 31, 2004 expiration date of the
current waiver, the Joint Applicants state that a 90-day extension of
the dormancy waiver is essential to preserve the authority that the
Department has tentatively decided to grant to Polar in place of Atlas.
Furthermore, the Joint Applicants state that Polar will require a longer
period of time – running beyond even the transition of existing Brazil
services that will follow issuance of the final order – to increase
capacity in a measured fashion with the four frequencies covered by the
dormancy waiver.  For these reasons, the Joint Applicants request a
Pendente Lite extension of the current frequency dormancy waiver until
90 days after the issuance of the final order.  The Joint Applicants
state that 90 days is the time period typically established by the
Department for commencement of services following the award of route
rights and/or frequencies in limited-entry markets.

Arrow Air filed an answer.  Atlas and Polar filed a reply.

Arrow states that it has not opposed the Atlas/Polar application in the
above dockets provided that the Atlas/Polar request does not adversely
affect consideration of Arrow’s application for new authority to serve
Brazil.  Arrow further states, however, that a request for a further
extension of the dormancy waiver, a request not previously submitted to
the Department, is inappropriate.  Arrow indicates that it has a
potential interest in the availability of additional frequencies if the
Department sustains its decision in the show-cause order and Arrow has
transitioned to scheduled service.

In their reply, Atlas and Polar note that Arrow has not opposed their
request.  The Joint Applicants contend that Arrow is merely interested
in ensuring that grant of the waiver extension does not prejudice
Arrow’s ability to serve Brazil should the Department’s tentative
decision be finalized.  In addition, the Joint Applicants note that
there is no guarantee that the Department will even have issued its
final order by December 31, 2004, and that an extension beyond that date
is essential.

Applicant rep:  Russell E. Pommer,<PHONE_NUMBER>      DOT analyst:
Michael D. Bodman<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted, in part. (See below).

XX  Balance deferred (See below).

The above action was effective when taken: December 27, 2004, through
March 31, 2005.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		 Office of International Aviation

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

XX Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

________________________________________________________________________
____________

Remarks:  We have granted the Joint Applicants’ request for a dormancy
waiver extension for an additional 90 days to preserve the status quo
while the Department considers the pleadings filed in response to Order
2004-11-3 and continues to process a final order in the above-captioned
dockets.  We have deferred on the Joint Applicants’ request to the
extent that they seek a Pendente Lite extension of the dormancy waiver
until 90 days after issuance of a final order.  We will address the
issues raised by the Pendente Lite extension request, including those
raised by Arrow, within the context of the proceeding in the
above-captioned dockets.  We note that our action here extending
Atlas’ dormancy waiver will not affect the Department’s
consideration of Arrow’s application for new authority to serve
Brazil.

We find that grant of the waiver request, in the particular
circumstances presented, is in the public interest.  However, we are
putting Atlas and Polar on notice that there should be no expectation
that an additional request will similarly be granted.  As is our policy
in considering dormancy waiver requests, we reserve the right to
reexamine whether grant of this waiver continues to be in the public
interest.  Any future request to extend the dormancy waiver for the
frequencies at issue here will have to be considered in light of the
specific arguments offered and responses thereto, and in the context of
the circumstances present at that time, including whether another
carrier seeks to use the frequencies at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
____________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; and (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests
in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the action
taken in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

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

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

Atlas’ waiver from the dormancy condition is effective through March
31, 2005.   As to any frequency with which Atlas does not begin service
by that date, its allocation with respect to that frequency will expire
automatically.

 PAGE   2