[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52912-52913]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC13-137-000.
    Applicants: Mojave Solar LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Mojave Solar LLC for the Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-550-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Order 719 Compliance--Attachment AE, Section 4.1.2 to
be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-103-003.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2013-08-20--Order 1000 Second Compliance to be
effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1605-001.
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: Transmission Rate Filing--Attachment H to be effective
1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1906-001.
    Applicants: Guttman Energy Inc.
    Description: Original Volume No. 1 to be effective 8/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2191-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Amended Cert of Concurrence Chg to
DEMI to be effective 8/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2192-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: 2013-08-19--RDRR--Compliance to be effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2193-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3630; Queue No. Y3-036
to be effective 7/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2194-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position Y3-037; Original SA No. 3629 to be
effective 7/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2195-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Amended Cert of Concurrence Chg to
DEMI to be effective 8/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2196-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of North Star Solar E&P
Agreement to be effective 7/31/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2197-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement of
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 8/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130819-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2198-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement of
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2199-000.
    Applicants: Allegany Generating Station LLC.
    Description: Baseline new to be effective 9/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2200-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Filing of Amendment to CIAC Agreement to be effective
8/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2201-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: CIAC Agreement Under Wabash Valley Interconnection
Agreement to be effective 8/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2202-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 08-20-13 Attach P SMEPA GFA to be effective 12/19/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2203-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Retail, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Retail, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance--Amend Cert of Concurrence Chg to DEMI to be effective 8/21/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2204-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance Filing--Amended Cert of Concurrence Chg to DEMI to
be effective 8/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130820-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. E.T. 9/10/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 20, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20863 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35759-35760]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2044-000]

Just Energy Limited; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Just Energy Limited's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 27, 2022.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number

field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12675 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 19367]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-99-000.
    Applicants: Horse Hollow Wind III, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Horse Hollow Wind III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170419-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-100-000.
    Applicants: Post Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Post Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170419-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1438-000.
    Applicants: Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1439-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3317 WAPA & East River
Electric Power Interconnection Agr to be effective 4/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1440-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 791,
Utilities Agreement with MDT (Armington Slope) to be effective 4/21/
2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1441-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Changes to ISO-NE Financial
Assurance Policy to be effective 9/12/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1442-000.
    Applicants: Axiall, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 5/26/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.
    Docket Numbers: ER17-1443-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2014 Southwestern Power
Administration Amendatory Agreement Sixth Extension to be effective 4/
1/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1444-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-04-20_Day-Ahead Margin
Assurance Payment (DAMAP) filing to be effective 4/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170420-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08471 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 577-580]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31560]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0202; FRL-9905-05-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revisions to Rules and Regulations for Control of Air Pollution;
Permitting of Grandfathered Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
State of Texas on July 31, 2002; September 4, 2002; and March 1, 2004.
These revisions require that all grandfathered facilities obtain
specific permits which include emission control methods to achieve
mandated emission reductions, as required, or shutdown; and require
that emissions from dockside vessels which result from operations at
grandfathered land-based facilities be included in specific permits.
The revisions also outline additional permitting procedures for certain
grandfathered pipeline equipment located in an ozone nonattainment
area. EPA is approving the revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act), and EPA's regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0202. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make
an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Barrett (6PD-R), Air Permits
Section, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``our,''
and ``us'' refers to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our
October 25, 2013 proposal (78 FR 63929). In that notice, we proposed to
approve revisions to the Texas SIP regarding 30 TAC Chapter 116,
subchapter H: ``Permits for Grandfathered Facilities'' and Subchapter
I: ``Electric Generating Facility Permits''.
    We received one comment on our proposal. The comment we received
can be accessed from the www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2011-0202). The discussion below addresses the comment we
received on our proposed action.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: We received a comment dated November 22, 2013, from the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) stating that TCEQ does
not support the proposed approval of 30 TAC 116.803. TCEQ noted that on
September 24, 2013, it withdrew 30 TAC 116.793 through 116.807 from EPA
consideration. TCEQ referenced a June 29, 2011 letter from EPA Region 6
to TCEQ. In that letter, EPA returned certain subsections of 30 TAC
Chapter 116, subchapter H, specifically 30 TAC 116.779(a)(10),
116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I), 116.794(11), 116.795(f), and 116.799(a). The
returned subsections pertain to Texas' implementation of the hazardous
air pollution program under section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act, and
are not required to be submitted as a revision to the Texas SIP.

    Response: EPA agrees with TCEQ. EPA believes that these sections
are no longer before EPA as part of Texas' SIP submittal. EPA is taking
no action on 30 TAC 116.779(a)(10), 116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I), and
116.793 through 116.807. TCEQ's comment and the documents referenced in
the comment are included in the docket.

III. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the Texas SIP regarding 30 TAC
Chapter 116, subchapter H: ``Permits for Grandfathered Facilities'' and
Subchapter I: ``Electric Generating Facility Permits''. Specifically,
we are approving the following revisions to the Texas SIP:
     Addition of 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H, sections
116.770-772, 116.774, 116.775, 116.777, 116.779-781 (except for
116.779(a)(10)), 116.783, 116.785-788 (except for
116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I)), and 116.790, submitted on July 31, 2002.
     Addition of 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H, section
116.778 and Subchapter I, section 116.919, submitted on September 4,
2002.
     Addition of the revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116,
subchapter H sections 116.770 and 116.772, submitted on March 1, 2004.
    The revisions require that all grandfathered facilities obtain
specific permits which include emission control methods to achieve
mandated emission reductions, as required, or shutdown; and require
that emissions from dockside vessels which result from operations at
grandfathered land-based facilities be included in specific permits.
The revisions also outline additional permitting procedures for certain
grandfathered pipeline equipment located in an ozone nonattainment
area. We are approving the revisions under section 110, part C, and
part D of the CAA, and EPA's regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Clean Air Act; 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 rule 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 7, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Nonattainment,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA Approved
Regulations in the Texas SIP'' is amended under Chapter 116--Control of
Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification, as
follows:
0
a. Immediately following the entry for Sec.  116.615, by adding an
entry for Subchapter H; and
0
b. Immediately following the entry for Sec.  116.918, by adding an
entry for Sec.  116.919.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

                                                        EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          State
                                                                        approval/
            State citation                      Title/subject           submittal       EPA approval date                     Explanation
                                                                           date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Subchapter H--Permits for Grandfathered Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Division 1--General Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.770.......................  Requirement to Apply.........      1/28/04  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                                                                [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 116.771.......................  Implementation Schedule for        5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Additional Controls.                       [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 116.772.......................  Notice of Shutdown...........      1/28/04  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                                                                [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Division 2--Small Business Stationary Source Permits, Pipeline Facilities Permits, and Existing Facility Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.774.......................  Eligibility for Small              5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Business Stationary Source                 [Insert FR page number
                                         Permits.                                    where document begins].
Section 116.775.......................  Eligibility for Pipeline           5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Facilities Permits.                        [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 116.777.......................  Eligibility for Existing           5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Facility Permits.                          [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 116.778.......................  Additional Requirements for        8/21/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Applications for Small                     [Insert FR page number
                                         Business Stationary Source                  where document begins].
                                         Permits, Pipeline Facilities
                                         Permits, or Existing
                                         Facility Permits.
Section 116.779.......................  Applications for Small             5/22/02  1/6/14..................  116.779(a)(10) is not in the SIP.
                                         Business Stationary Source                 [Insert FR page number
                                         Permits, Pipeline Facilities                where document begins].
                                         Permits, or Existing
                                         Facility Permits.
Section 116.780.......................  Public Participation for           5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Initial Issuance of Pipeline               [Insert FR page number
                                         Facilities Permits and                      where document begins].
                                         Existing Facility Permits.
Section 116.781.......................  Notice and Comment Hearings        5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         for Initial Issuance of                    [Insert FR page number
                                         Pipeline Facilities Permits                 where document begins].
                                         and Existing Facility
                                         Permits.
Section 116.783.......................  Notice of Final Action on          5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Pipeline Facilities Permit                 [Insert FR page number
                                         Applications and Existing                   where document begins].
                                         Facility Permit Applications.
Section 116.785.......................  Permit Fee...................      5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                                                                [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 116.786.......................  General and Special                5/22/02  1/6/14..................  116.786(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I) is not in the SIP.
                                         Conditions.                                [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

Section 116.787.......................  Amendments and Alterations of      5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Permits Issued Under this                  [Insert FR page number
                                         Division.                                   where document begins].
Section 116.788.......................  Renewal of Permits Issued          5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Under this Division.                       [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 116.790.......................  Delegation...................      5/22/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                                                                [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Subchapter I--Electric Generating Facility Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 116.919.......................  Additional Requirements for        8/21/02  1/6/14..................  ..........................................
                                         Grandfathered Electric                     [Insert FR page number
                                         Generating Facility Permit                  where document begins].
                                         Applications.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-31560 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA

FROM:		John Sunda, SAIC and Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

DATE: 		April 14, 2010

SUBJECT:	Technology Analysis for the Discharge of Power Plant Combustion Flue Gas Through Natural Draft Cooling Towers

Tetra Tech and SAIC were tasked by EPA with reviewing the conceptual design of an emerging technology for managing air emissions: the discharge of treated power plant combustion flue gas by injection into the plume of a natural draft cooling tower.   This design is an innovative technology, first introduced in 1981 in Europe that is just now being introduced in the United States.  Normally, combustion flue gas is discharged and dispersed into the atmosphere through the use of tall smoke stacks.  In this technology, a natural draft cooling tower (NDCT) serves the dual function of providing for discharge and dispersion of both the air pollutants contained in the flue gas and waste heat from the condensers.  This technology is now a requirement for power plants in Germany (SPX 2010).

Background

In 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) that requires reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in 28 eastern US states by 2015.  CAIR sets an emission reduction requirement for each State, based on capping power plant emissions collectively at levels that EPA believes are highly cost-effective to achieve.  SO2 annual caps are set at 3.6 million tons in 2010 and drop to 2.5 million tons in 2015.  NOx annual caps are set at 1.5 million tons in 2009 and 1.3 million tons in 2015.  CAIR was legally challenged and, on July 11, 2008, the US District Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the rule, citing "more than several fatal flaws in the rule."

A subsequent December 23, 2008 ruling leaves CAIR and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs, including the CAIR trading programs) in place until EPA issues a new rule to replace CAIR in accordance with the July 11, 2008 decision.  EPA informed the Court that development and finalization of a replacement rule could take about two years.  The Court ruling did not modify any of the provisions in CAIR and the original deadlines are still effective.  CAIR has increased the demand for the installation of equipment to remove SO2 from flue gas in coal-fired power plants, and wet flue gas desulphurization (FGD) is the preferred method (Kelly 2007).

First Installation in US

The Cardinal Station power plant is a three unit coal-fired power plant located along the Ohio River in Brilliant, OH and is owned by AEP.  Units 1 and 2 have generating capacities of 615 MW each and came online in 1967.  Both use once-through cooling, withdrawing water from the Ohio River.  Unit 3 has a generating capacity of 630 MW and first came online in 1977.  Unit 3 uses a closed cycle cooling system with a 423 ft tall NDCT that was constructed as part of the original system.  Recently, the plant has been required to upgrade its air pollution control equipment to include FGD on all three units, presumably in response to CAIR.  An FGD upgrade has already been completed for Units 1 and 2 in 2006, with the treated flue gas being discharged through a single new stack that is >1,000 ft tall and lined with fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP).  Recently, the SPX Corporation was awarded a contract to design and install the first NDCT flue gas disposal system in the US on Unit 3.

Total costs for the Unit 3 SPX contract are $47 million and include a fiberglass reinforced plastic conduit for transporting the flue gas from the new FGD to the existing NDCT and modifications to the tower associated with the retrofit.  The SPX tower upgrade work was scheduled begin in late 2009 and the flue gas system installation is scheduled to be completed during the commissioning of a new FGD system in 2012.  The following discussion examines the issues and benefits related to the use of NDCTs for the disposal of treated flue gas, especially as it relates to costs and cooling towers at power plants.

Technology Overview

Many of the flue gas treatment processes that are installed to meet more stringent air pollution discharge requirements (e.g., FGD) require that the flue gas be cooled in order to be processed, and many of these processes utilize wet scrubbing technology.  In such processes, the flue gas is typically cooled to about 80 C (176 F) and becomes saturated with water vapor.  The cooler flue gas introduces several problems within the air emissions control technology:

    It is saturated with water and still contains some SO3, chlorides, and fluorides which can condense out as an acid and can be very corrosive, requiring expensive corrosion-resistant materials in all of the air pollution control and downstream equipment (fans, heat exchangers, ducts, stacks).  The stacks and equipment must be designed to prevent condensed acid droplets from being emitted out the top of the stack.
    The existing stacks are typically designed and sized to use the buoyancy of hot gas to draw the gases up through the stack.  The cooler flue gas will require reheat equipment and/or additional fan energy to transport the flue gas through the stack, both of which will require equipment with corrosion-resistant materials or linings.
    The reduced buoyancy changes the internal stack flue gas pressure from a negative to positive condition, increasing the likelihood that over time corrosive gases will pass through any cracks that may form in the stack liner and thus require the need for great care in design and installation of the flue liner.
    If not reheated, the colder flue gas plume exiting the stack will not rise as high, reducing the effective stack height and resulting in less effective dispersion of the plume.  Thus, a taller stack may possibly be required if the air pollution controls do not compensate for the effect on ground level concentrations locally downwind.

The most common solution to these problems is to construct a new "wet" stack with a corrosion-resistant liner or lining.  These stacks are designed with a lower gas velocity to minimize the emission of acid droplets out of the top of the stack.  The use of the existing stack with modifications to resist corrosion plus the addition of gas reheat equipment is also an option.  When installing a new FGD system, the use of an NDCT for flue gas disposal eliminates the costs of a new wet flue gas stack or the costs of modifying the existing stack system including reheat.

In the NDCT flue gas alternative, the cooled treated flue gas is piped from the air pollution control equipment and injected into the center of an NDCT well above the wet cooling section (at 49 meters height in one example).  The cost of building a new smokestack system is replaced by the typically much lower cost of modifying the tower and installing the large diameter FRP conduit needed to transport the flue gas to the NDCT.  Tower modifications include structural changes to accommodate the holes through the thin concrete shell needed for passage of the gases and measures required to deal with the presence of corrosive gases.

The introduction of the warmer (relative to water vapor from the cooling water stream) flue gas into the tower will provide additional buoyancy inside the tower, which in turn can increase tower air flow, providing some improvement to cooling tower performance.  At the same time, the mixing and dispersion of the flue gas into the relatively large NDCT plume allows better dispersion of the air pollutants than would occur using a conventional stack under most circumstances.  One study stated that this flue gas disposal method should be effective in reducing local ground-level concentrations, since NDCT plumes are typically very buoyant with a densimetric Froude number below 1 (Schatzmanna et al 1987).  The reverse is true only under high wind conditions when the NDCT plume may be subject to tower and building downwash.

Benefits of the NDCT flue gas alternative include:

    Eliminated/reduced capital and O&M costs of treated flue gas discharge equipment downstream of the air pollution control equipment (stack, reheat equipment, fans).
    Improved cooling tower performance due to an increase in the volume of air entering the tower and passing through the wet cooling section, resulting from the increased buoyancy of air inside the NDCT.  This would produce slightly colder cooling water leaving the tower, resulting in an improvement in turbine efficiency and plant heat rate.
    Improved dispersion of stack gases downwind under most conditions.

This technology is limited to NDCTs and cannot be implemented for mechanical draft towers (MDCTs).  Cooled flue gases are still too hot to be of any use in cooling the condenser water, and the injection of treated flue gas into the air outlet of an MDCT would produce no benefit to the operation of the cooling tower.  Such an application would result in unacceptable ground-level air pollution concentrations nearby, since MDCTs have a much lower discharge height and their plumes have a tendency to disperse near the ground and be recirculated.

Cost Considerations

EPA's 316(b) rule compliance cost estimates are based on mechanical draft towers.  MDCTs have lower capital costs and higher O&M costs than NDCTs.  According to a major cooling tower vendor, since NDCTs require a high capital investment, they are usually most economical when installed at large plants that operate frequently or continuously, such as a baseload coal or nuclear plant.   When considering installation of a cooling tower, each individual facility would need to evaluate the balance between lower O&M costs of the NDCTs and their higher capital costs to determine the best option.  For many plants, the expected service life for the NDCT needs to be about 40 or more years to reach the break-even point (SPX 2010b).  However, when cost adjustments for components such as plume abatement are included in the comparison, or the savings of using an NDCT for treated flue gas versus installing a new wet stack are considered, then the break-even time frame can become much shorter.

Brayton Point

As an example, the Brayton Point Power Plant is installing two 500 ft NDCTs with a total design flow of 720,000 gpm to meet 316(a) and (b) requirements.  Information from the facility indicates that the two NDCTs will cost about $500 million ($700 per gpm), which is roughly 1.8 times greater than the cost predicted by  EPRI's "difficult" retrofit costs estimate for a comparably sized conventional MDCT system ($280 million or $390 per gpm.

At first glance, the present value of the cost savings for O&M is $4 million over 40 years, which at a 5% discount rate is about $70 million; this is not comparable to the roughly $220 million capital cost difference between the NDCT system and a comparably sized MDCT system.  However, the EPRI "difficult" MDCT retrofit costs do not explicitly include plume abatement, which Brayton Point decided was necessary because of concerns about fog and icing on a nearby highway and bridge.  Plume abatement towers cost between 2.5 and 3.5 times as much as conventional ones (SPX 2010a), assuming the tower component of an MDCT costs about $75 per gpm.  Assuming that the 3.5x multiplier applies to saltwater systems, the plume abatement could add as much as about $260/gpm to the EPRI "difficult" MDCT retrofit cost.  This additional $260/gpm is equivalent to $187 million, and the present value sum of all three costs ($280 + $187 + $70 million) is roughly $537 million for the MDCT option with plume abatement and including O&M.  Thus, it appears that the need for plume abatement increased the cost of MDCTs to the point where the cost of each option was comparable.  In addition, NDCTs have other favorable traits, such as being more reliable at resolving the safety issues of fog and ice and of producing higher net generating capacity during peak demand periods.

Cost Savings of NDCTs

Probably the largest cost saving item for the NDCT flue gas disposal option is the elimination of the cost of a new stack or modifications to the existing stack.  New stacks will be required for all new generating units with conventional flue gas systems.  For repowered and existing plants being retrofitted with flue gas treatment technology, the existing stack may not be suitable for continued use.  Factors affecting the associated costs and the decision to build a new stack or modify the existing stack include:

    The condition and expected service life of the existing stack;
    The compatibility of the new flue gas conditions with the design of the existing stack;
    The modifications to the stack required, particularly with respect to the prevention of corrosion;
    The need for flue gas reheat equipment, equipment O&M, and added equipment and fan energy requirements; and
    The location of the existing stack with respect to the new pollution control equipment.  A poor location could result in the need for an excessive length of costly conduit or in insufficient available space for placement of the conduit.

In many cases, retiring the old stack and building a new stack may be the selected option for a conventional flue gas system, as was the case for the original design at Units 1, 2, and 3 at Cardinal Station.  In most cases, the option of using the existing stack has significant capital and much higher O&M costs and has generally been abandoned because of its high costs for little perceived benefit (Sargent & Lundy 2003).

A representative for a construction company that builds power plant stacks (who requested anonymity) estimated that a new stack for Unit 3 at the Cardinal Station plant would have cost about $10 to $15 million.  This is equivalent to a unit cost of $15,400 to $23,100 per MW generating capacity for the 650 MW Unit 3.  The reported new stack height for Units 1 and 2 is greater than 1,000 ft and it is assumed that the Unit 3 stack would have been comparable in height if that option had been chosen.  The older original plant stacks for Units 2 and 3 are reported to be 826 ft and 895 ft, respectively.

As a way to verify these costs, SAIC recently managed a project involving the upgrading of the air pollution control equipment at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant that included replacing the stack for a small coal-fired industrial boiler.  The construction costs for this 150-ft tall stack were approximately $660,000, and the 257 MMBTU/hr boiler is estimated to be equivalent in energy output to a 27.8 MW coal-fired power plant based on an assumed heat rate of 9,300 BTU/hr.  This is equivalent to a unit cost of about $24,000 per MW generating capacity which is similar to the high end estimate for the Cardinal plant's Unit 3.  The fact that these two stacks of widely different heights have similar costs per MW is likely due to the fact that the economies of scale of the much greater flue gas volume (24X based on estimated equivalent generating capacity) are offset by the much greater height (6.7X) of the Cardinal Station power plant stack.

Stack height is determined using air dispersion modeling to identify the minimum height needed to meet local air pollution regulations.  EPA has also established a "good engineering practices" (GEP) stack height for any given site-specific application which takes into consideration the downwash effects of nearby structures.  The GEP stack height is the maximum height that can be used in air dispersion modeling estimates even if the actual stack is taller, and is intended to prevent the use of taller stacks instead of air pollution control equipment to meet air standards.  The average height for coal-fired boiler stacks built between 1971 and 1976 was 570 ft (Bellas 2008).  The average stack height for all stacks at plants reporting a coal-fired steam flow in the 2006 EIA database was 445 ft with the tallest being 1103 ft.  At nearly 1,000 ft, the Cardinal Station stack heights and estimated costs appear to represent the higher end of the range of stack heights and thus costs for similar plants throughout the US.

Another important cost item is the cost of the treated flue gas conduit.  The comparative lengths of conduit for each of the two treated flue gas disposal options will factor into the decision of which method will be selected.  If the distance from the air pollution control equipment to the location of the NDCT is much greater than the distance to the existing or proposed stack location, then high conduit costs may favor use of a stack.  Since stacks have a relatively small footprint, there is much greater flexibility in selecting a site for a stack than for an NDCT and so the distance to a new stack may tend to be shorter.

As a result of recent increases in the costs of corrosion-resistant metals, the trend has been to construct treated flue gas conduit using FRP, as will be the case for Cardinal  Station Unit 3.  One source estimated that installed FRP costs were about $100 to $150 per sq ft (Kelly 2008).  Using $125 per sq ft, the estimated costs of the 290-ft diameter liner that carried the Unit 1 flue gas inside the new 954 ft stack at Cardinal station would be approximately $11 million.  This is equivalent to approximately $14,000 per MW for a 1,000 ft length of flue gas conduit.

The case of Brayton Point provides additional perspective.  While flue gas disposal may not have been an issue at Brayton Point, if it had been, the location of the two new NDCTs appears to be rather far at around 1,500 to 2,000 ft from the generating units.  The resulting estimated cost for a conduit to the NDCTs of $21,000 to $28,000 per MW appears to be similar in magnitude to the cost of building a nearby new stack at $24,000 per MW.  So in this case, had Brayton Point been required to upgrade their air pollution control equipment with FGD technology, the NDCT flue gas disposal option probably would not have resulted in any substantial cost savings.

Potential Implications for 316(b) and Other Regulations

EPA raised the question of whether the flue gas disposal technology should be included in the 316(b) economic analyses.  As noted above, the decision to use MDCTs or NDCTs as a flow reduction technology is site-specific.  The incorporation of FGD wastes into an NDCT may influence a facility's technology choice, but for the purposes of estimating national 316(b) compliance costs, MDCTs are the most appropriate technology given their versatility and the fact that they are the tower type that is most often utilized in cooling system retrofits and new construction.  As noted above, for many plants, especially those with lower capacity utilization and shorter expected service life, using MDCTs may be the lower cost option as well.  In some applications, MDCTs may be the more expensive option compared to NDCTs; in those cases, EPA's selection of MDCTs for cost estimation represents a conservative costing approach, as the higher cost technology is assumed for those facilities.  In summary, given the limited applicability of the technology, it would not be appropriate to include consideration of flue gas disposal in the 316(b) rule economic analysis.

A second question would be whether a facility choosing to install NDCTs for compliance with 316(b) requirements should be included in any economic analyses for Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations.  As stated above, the decision on which cooling tower technology to install incorporates a number of site-specific considerations that are not limited to solely the CAA regulations.  However, it is reasonable to expect that some facilities may select NDCTs as a technology option for compliance with either or both regulations.  Additionally, it is possible that facilities with existing NDCTS (like Cardinal) will take advantage of the cost savings versus construction of a stack for the FGD.  As such, it would likely be appropriate for EPA to consider flue gas disposal in the context of rulemakings under the Clean Air Act.

For existing plants, one issue that may limit the applicability of this technology is that the timeline for compliance with air pollution requirements such as CAIR has already been established and decisions to install air pollution control equipment to meet the 2010 SO2 caps have already been made.  A facility may be able to amend its plans to incorporate an NDCT, but given the different time scales of CAA and 316(b) regulations, there may be minimal overlap in the decision-making criteria.

The technology may also be available to coal-fired generating units that will be newly constructed at an existing facility or for existing coal-fired generating units that are being repowered as coal-fired units, as long as the repowering requires major reconstruction or upgrade of the flue gas treatment and handling system.  Repowered generating units that convert to cleaner burning fuels will tend to have less need for pollution control equipment and may require shorter stack heights.

Conclusion

As discussed above, the discharge of FGD emissions via an NDCT is an emerging technology that may be evaluated as an additional option for a facility or new unit that must implement closed-cycle cooling.  Additionally, there may be some opportunities for compliance cost reductions by combining technologies to meet multiple water rules and air emissions regulations.  At the present time, however, there is not enough information to forecast adoption and use of the technology.

References

M. Schatzmanna, M. Lohmeyerb, A.  and Ortnerc G. "Flue gas discharge from cooling towers. Wind tunnel investigation of building downwash effects on ground-level concentrations." Atmospheric Environment. Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages 1683-1875 (1987).

SPX Cooling Technologies Inc. Marsten, Kent. Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling. Personal communication with John Sunda, SAIC. January 15, 2010a.

SPX Cooling Technologies Inc. Marsten, Kent. Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling. Personal communication with John Sunda, SAIC. February 26, 2010b.

Bellas, A.S. Largey, I "Did State Regulation of Power Plants Cause an Increase in Pollution Exportation?" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Papers. 2008.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=usepapapers

Kelly, Don.  The Use of FRP in FGD Applications. Reinforced Pastics Volume 51, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 14-19.

Kelly Don. The Rapid Growth of Composites in Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Processes 2008. http://www.derakane.com/downloadServlet?docPath=DPAPP1.asco.ashland.com%5CData%5Cascc%5Cecomdocsasc.nsf%5CEB2E55077DDFB4C3852574C8004B32A7%5C%24FILE%5CCOAL-GEN_Paper_08_DHK.pdf

Sargent & Lundy LLC. Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation. Prepared for National Lime Association. January 2003. http://www.lime.org/Wet_FGD.pdf


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34303-34306]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0567]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron,
MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Port Huron, MI. This
zone is intended to restrict and control movement of vessels in a
portion of the St. Clair River. Though this is an unsanctioned, non-
permitted marine event, this zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on the navigable waters during a float down event near
Port Huron, MI.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 12 p.m. through 8
p.m. on August 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0567 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click

``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rule.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    During the afternoon of August 18, 2019, a non-sanctioned public
event is scheduled to take place. The event is advertised over various
social-media sites, in which a large number of persons float down a
segment of the St. Clair River, using inner tubes and other similar
floatation devices. The 2019 float down event will occur between
approximately 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on August 18, 2019. This non-
sanctioned event has taken place in the month of August annually since
2009.
    No private or municipal entity requested a marine event permit from
the Coast Guard for this event, and it has not received state or
federal permits since its inception. The event has drawn over 5,000
participants of various ages annually. Despite plans put together by
federal, state and local officials, emergency responders and law
enforcement officials have been overburdened pursuing safety during
this event. Medical emergencies, people drifting across the
international border, and people trespassing on residential property
when trying to get out of the water before the designated finish line
are some of the numerous difficulties encountered during the float down
event.
    During the 2014 float-down event, a 19-year-old participant died.
During the 2016 float down, a wind shift caused thousands of U.S.
citizen rafters with no passports to drift into Canadian waters. The
current and wind made it impossible for the rafters to paddle back into
U.S. waters, necessitating significant coordination with the Canadian
authorities. Despite these events, promotional information for the
event continues to be published. More than 5,000 people are again
anticipated to float down the river this year. No public or private
organization holds themselves responsible as the event sponsor.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this float down event
in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Moreover, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the float down
event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit
(COTP) has determined the float down poses significant risk to public
safety and property from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 18, 2019. The
likely combination of large numbers of participants, strong river
currents, limited rescue resources, and difficult emergency response
scenarios could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities to
float down participants and spectators. Therefore, the COTP is
establishing a safety zone around the event location to help minimize
risks to safety of life and property during this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on
August 18, 2019. The safety zone will begin at Lighthouse Beach and
encompass all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line
starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at
position 43[deg]00.416' N; 082[deg]25.333' W, extending east to the
international boundary to a point at position 43[deg]00.416' N;
082[deg]25.033' W, following south along the international boundary to
a point at position 42[deg]54.500' N; 082[deg]27.683' W, extending west
to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42[deg]54.500'
N; 082[deg]27.966' W, and following north along the U.S. shoreline to
the point of origin (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or
his or her on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit
through this safety zone. Additionally, no one under the age of 18 will
be permitted to enter the safety zone if they are not wearing a Coast
Guard approved personal floatation device. The COTP or his or her on-
scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 12 p.m.
until 8 p.m. on August 18, 2019. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting eight hours that
will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L[60](a) in Table 3-1 of
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1.
A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0567 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0567  Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair
River, Port Huron, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S.
navigable waters of southern Lake Huron and the St. Clair River
adjacent to Port Huron, MI, beginning at Lighthouse Beach and
encompassing all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line
starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at
position 43[deg]00.416' N; 082[deg]25.333' W, extending east to the
international boundary to a point at position 43[deg]00.416' N;
082[deg]25.033' W, following south along the international boundary to
a point at position 42[deg]54.500' N; 082[deg]27.683' W, extending west
to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42[deg]54.500'
N; 082[deg]27.966' W, and following north along the U.S. shoreline to
the point of origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph
(a) will be in enforced from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 18, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit
through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his or her on-scene
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or his or her on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Detroit to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his or her on-scene
representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the
safety zone.

The COTP or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to
enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions
given to them by the COTP or his or her on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 8, 2019.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2019-15282 Filed 7-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29524-29525]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2836]

Allergenic Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Allergenic Products Advisory
Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice
and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 13, 2019, from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be
webcast and will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/apac091319/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CAPT Serina Hunter-Thomas or Ms.

Monique Hill, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6338,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, 305d5f5e594145551e58595c5c705654511e5858431e575f46
respectively, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-
8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal
Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously
announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly
enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm
and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or
call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting. For those unable to attend
in person, the meeting will also be available via Webcast. The Webcast
will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/apac091319/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On September 13, 2019, the Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research's (CBER) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee (VRBPAC) will meet in open session to discuss and make
recommendations on the safety and efficacy of Peanut [Arachis hypogaea]
Allergen Powder manufactured by Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc, indicated
for treatment to reduce the risk of anaphylaxis after accidental
exposure to peanut in patients aged 4 to 17 years with a confirmed
diagnosis of peanut allergy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: On September 13, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., the
meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data,
information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before
the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on
or before September 6, 2019. On September 13, 2019, oral presentations
from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. to 2
p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
August 29, 2019. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by August 30, 2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Serina Hunter-Thomas at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-13354 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P