[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58534-58535]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13705-002]

White Pine Waterpower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 4, 2013, White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Idaho, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
White Pine Pumped Storage Project (or project) to be located near the
town of Ely, White Pine County, Nevada. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An
artificially lined, upper reservoir having a capacity of 5,535 acre-
feet at 8,550 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) an artificially
lined, lower reservoir having a capacity of 5,535 acre-feet at 6,325
feet msl; (3) a 1,270-foot-long, 185-foot-high concrete-face, rock-fill
(CFRD) or roller-compacted concrete (RCC) upper dam; (4) a 250-foot-
long, 10-foot-high earthen dike; (5) a 630-foot-long, 40-foot-high CRFD
or earthen dike; (6) a 7,200-foot-long, 40-foot-high zoned earth-and
rock-fill or earthen dam; (7) a 3,400-foot-long, 17-foot-diameter
unlined or concrete-lined low pressure tunnel; (8) a 2,200-foot-long,
17-foot-diameter concrete-lined and steel-lined vertical pressure
shaft; (9) a 6,500-foot-long, 17-foot-diameter steel-lined high
pressure tunnel; (10) a 2,200-foot-long, 20.5-foot-diameter unlined or
concrete-lined tailrace; (11) a 350-foot-long by 100-foot-wide by 120-
foot-high powerhouse located underground approximately 1,500 feet east
of the lower reservoir at an elevation of approximately 6,000 feet msl;
(12) three 250-megawatt (MW) reversible pump-turbines, totaling 750 MW
of generating capacity; (13) a 2,950-foot-long, 24-foot-diamter access
tunnel that would lead from ground level to the powerhouse; (14) either
a single-circuit 345-kilovolt (kV) or double-circuit 230-kV
transmission line extending approximately 1.1 mile in length to the
Gondor substation, operated by Sierra Pacific Power and owned by Mt.
White Power and partners in the Intermountain Power Project; and (15)
associated interconnection equipment. The estimated annual generation
of the project would be 1,970 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Matthew Shapiro, CEO, Gridflex Energy, LLC,
1210 W. Franklin St., Ste. 2, Boise, Idaho 83702; phone: (208) 246-
9925.
    FERC Contact: Mary Greene; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13705-002.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13705) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 18, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23174 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10755-10756]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM01-8-000; ER02-2001-000]

Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Electric Quarterly
Reports; Supplemental Notice of Electric Quarterly Reports Technical
Conference

February 21, 2008.
    On January 7, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Electric
Quarterly Reports (EQR) Technical Conference regarding recent changes
associated with the EQR Data Dictionary. During the technical
conference, Commission staff will review the EQR Data Dictionary and
address questions from EQR users. An agenda for the conference is
attached.
    On September 24, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 2001-G, the
Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) Data Dictionary.\1\ The Commission
issued an order on rehearing, Order No. 2001-H, on December 21, 2007.
These orders may be found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements for Electric
Quarterly Reports, Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 (Sep. 24,
2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 56735 (Oct. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical conference will be held Tuesday, February 26, 2008,
in the

Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC and
via teleconference. The conference will run from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
(EST).
    All interested persons are invited to participate in the technical
conference by attending in person or by dialing in. Those interested in
participating are asked to register on the FERC Web site at https://
www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/eqr-02-26-form.asp. Please indicate
whether you will be attending in person or plan to dial in. There is no
registration fee. Information and further details about the technical
conference will be sent to registered participants.
    For additional information, please contact Christie Kim of FERC's
Office of Enforcement at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Requests for accessibility
accommodations should be sent by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
calling toll free<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or by
sending a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3722 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78720-78725]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30885]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0965; FRL-9904-71-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2009, Indiana submitted a request for a
revision to its sulfur dioxide (SO2) state implementation
plan (SIP) for the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC (ArcelorMittal)
facility in Porter County, Indiana. This revision would remove the
SO2 emission limit for the blast furnace gas flare at the
facility. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to
disapprove this requested revision on March 20, 2013. The EPA is
addressing comments and finalizing the disapproval action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0965. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Mary Portanova,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received, and what is EPA's response?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On December 10, 2009, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request for revision of its
SO2 SIP. This revision would amend 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 7-4-14, Porter County SO2 Emission
Limitations, by removing the SO2 limit for the blast furnace
flare at the ArcelorMittal steel mill. To be approved, this SIP
revision request must comply with section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), which states that the Administrator shall not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reasonable further
progress, and any other applicable requirements. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    After reviewing the state's submittal, EPA determined that the
proposed SIP revision does not meet the requirements of CAA section
110(l). Removal of the flare limit eliminates the only requirement
which directly addresses the sulfur content of the blast furnace gas
which ArcelorMittal uses to fuel other combustion units in the
facility. Although blast furnace gas is considered to be a low-sulfur
fuel, the state's submittal indicates that the sulfur content of blast
furnace gas can vary, and the proposed SIP revision would allow
ArcelorMittal's blast furnace gas to increase in sulfur content without
limit. This would be inconsistent with the state's prior attainment
demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS.
    The state has not fully evaluated the ambient impact of new
operating scenarios in which ArcelorMittal generates and uses higher-
sulfur blast furnace gas. It did not provide sufficient information for
EPA to confirm the assertion that the SIP emission limits would
continue to be met, with or without the use of the flare, under maximum
blast furnace capacity without limitations on blast furnace gas sulfur
content. Since the state's SIP submittal did not meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l), EPA published a notice of proposed disapproval
for this SIP revision request on March 20, 2013 (78 FR 17157). EPA
received four letters commenting on the proposed disapproval.

II. What comments were received, and what is EPA's response?

    EPA received two comments in support of the proposed disapproval,
from an Indiana public interest group (March 22, 2013) and a private
citizen (April 18, 2013). Both IDEM and ArcelorMittal disagreed with
the proposal to disapprove the SIP revision request. IDEM submitted its
comments on April 18, 2013. ArcelorMittal submitted its comments on
April 19, 2013. Their comments are addressed below.
    Comment: The flare limit represents an inequity in the state's
treatment of blast furnace gas flares; a similar facility nearby does
not have SO2 limits on its functionally identical flares.
The limits for Lake County, Indiana, were established after the limits
for Porter County, where ArcelorMittal is located. Emission inventories
and modeling parameters had improved, and through extensive
consultation with EPA, it was determined to be unnecessary to establish
SO2 emission limits specific to the flares for similar
facilities in Lake County (i.e. U.S. Steel Gary Works). IDEM was able
to establish SIP limits for sources such as U.S. Steel Gary Works which
did not include SO2 limits on the flares. EPA approved those
limits. There is no material reason for ArcelorMittal's blast furnace
gas flares in Porter County to be treated different from the blast
furnace gas flares operated by U.S. Steel in Lake County. It would be
arbitrary for EPA to disapprove the Porter County SIP revision to
remove blast furnace gas flare limits as unnecessary and redundant
limits after approving the 2005 Lake County SO2 SIP that did
not include blast furnace gas flare limits because they were
unnecessary and redundant. IDEM's attempt to remove this arbitrary
difference between neighboring counties should be considered an
appropriate correction to a historic error and approved. This SIP
revision would harmonize the Lake and Porter County treatment of flares
combusting excess blast furnace gas.
    Response: Indiana's December 10, 2009, submission did not
demonstrate that ArcelorMittal's revised SO2 SIP would
continue to protect the SO2 NAAQS or meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the SIP revision cannot be approved.
Emission limits, or the lack thereof, at other facilities are not
relevant to this demonstration. The fact that SO2 SIPs have
been approved without the need for SO2 limits on certain
flares is not in itself a justification for removing SO2
limits on flares from other sources in the absence of a showing that
the removal will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
    Comment: This should not be considered a matter of backsliding or
relaxation of the SIP, but a technical correction that is necessary to
establish consistency. The limit should have been excluded from the
start; therefore, this corrective action has no impact on the approved
SIP or the modeling conducted to support it.
    Response: The state established ArcelorMittal's flare limit in the
SIP as part of its strategy to attain and maintain the SO2
NAAQS in Porter County. The SIP was approved by EPA in 1989 and has
remained in effect. CAA section 110(l) does not provide an exception
for ``technical corrections.'' Even if it did, it would not be
appropriate to treat the state's December 10, 2009, SIP revision
request as a technical correction because it can be expected to affect
air quality and because the state has not provided a demonstration that
in 1989 it did not intend to establish an SO2 limit
applicable to the blast furnace flare now operated by ArcelorMittal.
Likewise, to the extent that the commenter is suggesting the SIP
provision was approved in error and should be

corrected pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA notes that the state
has not provided a basis for concluding that the approval of this
provision in 1989 was an error. In addition, EPA does not believe that
emission limit relaxations can be justified on the basis of
establishing consistency without also satisfying the requirements of
CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the proposed SIP revision's effects on
the existing SIP and on the state's maintenance of the NAAQS must be
evaluated in accordance with CAA section 110(l).
    Comment: IDEM and ArcelorMittal were led in 2007-2009 to believe
that the flare limit removal would be approvable. IDEM and
ArcelorMittal received no information to the contrary until 2012. EPA
was unwilling to establish fruitful dialogue with the state prior to
proposing disapproval. In its proposed disapproval, EPA did not cite or
recognize the wealth of information provided to supplement the SIP
revision.
    Response: EPA's concerns with this SIP revision did not arise until
EPA received and began review of Indiana's December 10, 2009, SIP
submittal. Following a thorough review of the submittal and additional
information subsequently provided by Indiana, EPA concluded that the
submittal did not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l). EPA
regularly communicated the progress of EPA's review of the submittal
during monthly conference calls with IDEM and offered opportunities for
further dialogue, which is documented in call summaries prepared by
IDEM.
    As early as January 2010, EPA identified potential issues with this
SIP revision request. EPA acknowledges that IDEM and ArcelorMittal
provided EPA with additional information in response to its questions,
which EPA carefully considered. However, the state's submittal,
including supplemental information, did not demonstrate that the
proposed SIP revision would satisfy CAA section 110(l). IDEM's monthly
call summaries indicate that EPA had begun working on a disapproval in
January 2012, after expressing continuing concerns in September 2011.
EPA formally communicated the deficiencies of the revision in the March
20, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 17157). EPA's proposal
was based on an evaluation of the state's official submittal using the
applicable requirements of the CAA, related regulations and guidance.
    Comment: The flares should not have a limit, especially a mass
limit (pounds per hour), because the flare needs to be available for
full usage to maintain operational safety. Additionally, a flare limit
presents a major hardship for compliance testing and enforcement.
    Response: EPA agrees that the ArcelorMittal flare must be allowed
to operate as necessary for operational safety and proper disposal of
waste gases. EPA also agrees that direct compliance testing of flare
emissions can be difficult. ArcelorMittal's existing flare emission
limit would not limit the flare's actual usage while the blast furnace
gas generated by the facility continued to meet the flare emission
limit. Deleting the flare limit, however, has additional consequences
for the SIP which Indiana did not adequately address in its SIP
revision request.
    Comment: The commenter states that the Montana Sulphur case which
EPA cited does not apply to this SIP revision because Indiana's SIP
includes limits on all the emissions from blast furnace gas combustion
that were used in the modeling to demonstrate attainment. The flares
were not attributed any mass emissions in the modeling demonstration or
the SIP. The Montana Sulphur case involved a state's decision to
include flares in the modeling demonstration but not include
corresponding emission limits in the SIP rule.
    Response: The Montana Sulphur case affirms that flares are not
exempt from having SIP emission limits, particularly where flare
emissions were quantified in an attainment demonstration that assumed
flare emissions would occur at a certain level. Indiana has submitted
information to EPA indicating that the blast furnace flare was included
in the original modeled attainment demonstration for the Porter County
SO2 SIP, with its SO2 emissions calculated from
blast furnace gas with a sulfur content of 0.07 pounds SO2
per million British Thermal Units (lb/mmBtu). Allowing higher-sulfur
blast furnace gas would affect SO2 emissions at several
emission points, including the flare, which could affect the adequacy
of the prior modeled attainment demonstration, which relied upon the
use of blast furnace gas with a sulfur content of 0.07 lb/mmBtu.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the SIP to require the flare and the
other sources using blast furnace gas to meet that emission rate or
demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limits based on that
emission rate. Indiana has not provided a demonstration which fully
addresses the effect on the attainment demonstration of relaxing the
SIP requirements to allow the facility to generate, use, and flare
higher-sulfur blast furnace gas. Likewise, in the SIP disapproval that
was the subject of the Montana Sulphur case, the state's attainment
demonstration had assumed SO2 emissions from flares would
occur at a certain rate, but had not shown in its enforceable SIP
emissions limits how the assumed emissions would be achieved. It is
true that EPA has not required all flares in all SO2 SIPs to
be subjected to emission limits. But where an attainment demonstration
relies upon SO2 emissions to occur at certain levels,
including those from flares, the SIP must contain adequate emission
limits to support the demonstration. The problem both in Montana
Sulphur and here was that the attainment demonstration submitted by the
state could not be so supported. (The blast furnace flare limit helped
support Indiana's demonstration for the ArcelorMittal facility when the
SO2 SIP was approved in 1989.) Consequently, EPA's
disapproval of the proposed SIP relaxation is fully consistent with the
Court's reasoning in the Montana Sulphur case and with EPA's SIP
disapproval action that was the subject of that case.
    Comment: The flare SO2 limit is in units of lb/mmBtu.
This is not a mass limit, which would be given as pounds of
SO2 per hour (lb/hr). Therefore the form of the limit is not
designed to be protective of the NAAQS. Only the mass based lb/hr
limits are relevant to ensuring SO2 NAAQS attainment in the
SIP. The 0.07 lb/mmBtu SO2 emission rate is a factor that is
no longer necessary or relevant after the lb/hr limits were established
and included in the SIP. Exclusion of this limit is no less protective
than the current SIP limit.
    Response: Emission limits given in units of lb/mmBtu are common in
SO2 SIPs. By directly limiting the sulfur content of the
fuels combusted in a given unit or facility, this type of limit allows
flexibility of unit operations. When the individual units are modeled
at their maximum heat input rates (in units of million British Thermal
Units per hour), assuming fuel at the lb/mmBtu limit, the SIP can be
shown to protect the NAAQS for any actual heat input rate, including
continual maximum operations, with compliant fuel. The removal of a lb/
mmBtu emission limit would enable the burning of a higher-sulfur fuel,
which could result in SO2 concentrations in excess of the
NAAQS and adversely affect public health.
    Comment: Given the existing flare SIP limit of 0.07 lb/mmBtu, an
emission rate of 8.9 lb/hr could be assumed for the flare, for modeling
purposes. Over a year of continuous operation, this would total less
than 39 tons per year, which is below the Significant Emission

Rate for SO2 (40 tons per year). Actual emissions would be
lower, because flares operate intermittently. Since the facility is in
an attainment area, the flare would normally be excluded from modeling
because it was considered de minimis. Recent EPA guidance suggests that
intermittent sources can be excluded from modeling.
    Response: The commenter's statements regarding the relative
importance of the flare's SO2 emissions do not eliminate the
need for a CAA section 110(l) demonstration addressing the full effects
of the proposed SIP revision. The comment references the flare's total
annual emissions while in compliance with the current SO2
emission limit, but it does not consider the increase in annual
SO2 emissions which the proposed SIP revision would allow.
In comparing the flare's total annual emissions to the Significant
Emission Rate, the commenter appears to be referencing New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration program requirements
which are not relevant to this SIP action. The designation of an area
as attainment of the NAAQS does not automatically exempt emission
sources from inclusion in SIP attainment demonstrations. It is not
clear that ArcelorMittal's blast furnace flare would qualify as an
intermittent source under EPA's March 1, 2011, memorandum Additional
Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for
the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (which
is what EPA assumes the commenter is referencing), or that it would be
appropriate to disregard the flare's emissions in a SIP modeling
analysis per this memorandum, and the state did not provide an analysis
justifying such an approach within a modeled demonstration for the 1-
hour SO2 standard.
    Comment: The pressure surge events that concern EPA are rare and
unexpected events that cannot be quantified. The allowable
SO2 emission rates are sufficiently conservative to account
for all such surges within the current allowable emissions inventory.
Therefore, the commenter disagrees with EPA's assertion that the SIP
revision would enable an increase in allowable SO2
emissions.
    Response: EPA referenced pressure surges in the March 20, 2013,
notice of proposed rulemaking because the documentation provided by the
state indicated that the blast furnace flare gas generation or
distribution systems were known to experience pressure surge events.
However, the state's declarations regarding flare usage and worst-case
facility operations did not address these events. We acknowledge the
commenter's additional assurances regarding the frequency and magnitude
of pressure surges. As discussed above, EPA is not solely concerned
with pressure surge events, but also with the effect on air quality of
removing the blast furnace flare limit from the SIP.
    Comment: The commenter declared a strong economic incentive to use
this gas as fuel, flaring as little of it as possible.
    Response: EPA understands that it is ArcelorMittal's intent to use
its blast furnace gas as fuel rather than flaring it, thus minimizing
flare emissions. However, the company has acknowledged the need to use
the flare for the safe operation of the blast furnace gas operating
system, regardless of the economic incentives to do otherwise. Whether
the flare is used frequently or not, the full effect of removing the
flare's emission limit must be addressed. The state did not provide a
CAA section 110(l) demonstration which adequately addressed the effect
of the proposed SIP revision on air quality, taking into consideration
the facility's ability to continue using all of its generated gases as
fuel and the lack of a sulfur limit on blast furnace gas.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the amount of process gas
generation is limited by enforceable restrictions. The facility's Part
70 operating permit places a limit on the amount of hot metal that can
be produced in the blast furnace, which effectively limits the amount
of blast furnace gas that can be produced by the facility. The coke
oven batteries have enforceable SIP limits on the amount of coke oven
gas that can be produced. The commenter said that the maximum amount of
blast furnace gas and coke oven gas that can be generated within these
restrictions can be consumed in the existing combustion units when
operated at maximum capacity. When IDEM modeled the allowable emissions
from the facility, combustion of all the blast furnace gas and coke
oven gas is properly included and there is no additional blast furnace
gas to attribute to the flare.
    Response: The commenter referred to hot metal production limits
within the facility's Part 70 permit which were originally derived from
a construction permit and are therefore permanent. The commenter stated
that these restrictions would affect blast furnace gas production, but
did not provide calculations or documentation which identified the
maximum amount of blast furnace gas that can be generated while in
compliance with the hot metal limitation in the facility's Part 70
permit. The total coke oven gas production allowable under the cited
coke battery limits was not given. The SIP includes SO2
emission limits for various fuel combustion units at ArcelorMittal
which can use blast furnace gas and coke oven gas, such as the blast
furnace stoves, coke battery underfire, slab mill soaking pits, and
power station boilers, which are referred to in this document as ``the
combustion units.'' No calculations were provided to show the amount of
process gas by volume which can be burned in the combustion units at
their maximum heat input capacities, for comparison with maximum gas
production in support of the commenter's assertion. The state's
submittal did not address the amounts of each fuel gas which
corresponded to the emission rates used in the dispersion modeling
analysis which the state cited in support of the SIP revision.
Therefore, EPA does not have sufficient information to confirm that the
maximum amount of blast furnace gas and coke oven gas which can be
generated within the facility's enforceable production restrictions can
be entirely consumed in the combustion units when operated in
compliance with the SO2 SIP emission limits.
    Comment: The sum of allowable SO2 lb/hr rates for all
combustion units burning process gases at the ArcelorMittal facility is
8,692 lb/hr. This rate is more than double the maximum SO2
emissions from combustion of all the process gases that can be produced
at the facility within current enforceable restrictions on hot metal
and coke oven gas. The commenter provided calculations to support this
assertion.
    Response: The calculations which the commenter provided appear to
be based on actual annual facility gas production data, rather than a
calculated maximum value which would be allowed by the enforceable
limits, as suggested by the comment. The comment letter contains a
table of calculated SO2 emissions from blast furnace gas and
coke oven gas. This table is identical to a table in ArcelorMittal's
June 29, 2011, letter to IDEM. In that letter, the blast furnace gas
production data was identified as the facility's highest recent annual
production amount (2004), and the coke oven gas was identified as the
highest recent annual production amount (2009). EPA has already
considered this information. The June 29, 2011, letter did not indicate
that the 2004 blast furnace gas production totals represented the
maximum amount of process gas that could be generated while in
compliance with the hot metal limit in the Part 70 permit. The

comment on EPA's March 20, 2013, proposed disapproval does not provide
additional calculations or documentation to identify the true maximum
blast furnace gas production which would be possible within the hot
metal limitation in ArcelorMittal's Part 70 permit, or to demonstrate
that the 2004 actual production value is equal to the maximum possible
production rate. EPA therefore concludes that the comment continues to
cite actual production data from 2004, which is not sufficient to prove
that the existing SIP limits will continue to accommodate all of the
gas ArcelorMittal can generate, when the blast furnace gas sulfur
content is no longer restricted by the flare limit.
    Comment: Since the worst-case scenario attributes no blast furnace
gas to the flare, a change in the actual emissions at the flare is
irrelevant for purposes of attainment and maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS. Any increase in emissions at the flare reflects a
corresponding reduction from another source already modeled and must be
considered a departure from the worst-case scenario that must be
modeled for the attainment demonstration. This is how EPA endorsed
modeling similar sources in Lake County.
    Response: A change in actual SO2 emissions at the flare
is only irrelevant if the SIP truly covers all possible blast furnace
gas production and sulfur content increases which would be allowed
under the revised SIP. The range of potential blast furnace gas sulfur
content at this facility has not been established. When blast furnace
gas is no longer assured of meeting 0.07 lb/mmBtu, the new worst-case
operating scenario may differ from the scenario which was previously
modeled to support the original SO2 SIP for this facility.
The state has not demonstrated that the SIP fully covers new potential
operating scenarios which could occur.
    Comment: One of the commenters disagreed with EPA's statement that
the limitations on the sulfur content of the process gases need to be
addressed in the SIP. The comment stated that the purpose of the SIP is
to attain and maintain the NAAQS and ensure reasonable further
progress, and for this purpose, IDEM established the SO2 lb/
hr emission limits for all fuel burning sources that use process gases
when operating at their full utilization rates. These rates were
modeled and attainment of the SO2 NAAQS was demonstrated at
the time of adoption of 326 IAC 7-4-14 as noted in 53 FR 34314
(September 6, 1988). The modeled rates were included as emission limits
in the SIP. The conservative modeled scenario provides an adequate
margin of safety to ensure than the attainment demonstration remains
valid and protective of the NAAQS. The modeled emission rates for the
combustion units remain unchanged and are not affected by the SIP
revision. Therefore, the revision does not interfere with protection of
the NAAQS. The other commenter added the statement that the limits
established to support compliance of the NAAQS are applicable
regardless of the sulfur content in the fuel used.
    Response: The SIP revision request removes an emission limit which
is directly linked to the sulfur content of the blast furnace gas
generated and used at ArcelorMittal. The sulfur content of the blast
furnace gas is directly linked to the facility's compliance with its
remaining lb/hr SIP emission limits, because the emissions from many of
those units correspond directly to the sulfur content of the blast
furnace gas and coke oven gas which are allowed to be used together as
fuel. The state has not demonstrated how ArcelorMittal will continue to
meet and demonstrate continuous compliance with these limits if blast
furnace gas is no longer assured of meeting a sulfur content of 0.07
lb/mmBtu. The state has not limited or quantified the expected increase
in blast furnace gas sulfur content under the revised SIP. The existing
SIP does not require the sulfur content of blast furnace gas to be
analyzed for compliance purposes. The facility's sampling and analysis
plan under 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(F) would allow ArcelorMittal to calculate
its combustion unit SO2 emissions by assuming that its blast
furnace gas sulfur content is 0.07 lb/mmBtu, even though the SIP would
no longer require the gas to meet that limit at any combustion unit.
The state has not shown that 0.07 lb/mmBtu will continue to be a
representative SO2 emission factor for ArcelorMittal's blast
furnace gas. The compliance requirements for the combustion units have
not been revised. The state has not provided a basis for EPA to
conclude that the revised SIP will have no effect on the operation of
the combustion sources or on the facility's need to flare excess fuel
gases. Therefore, the state has not demonstrated that relaxing
ArcelorMittal's SIP will satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(l).
    Comment: The commenter disagrees that actual flaring data is needed
for the SIP revision. Actual flaring events reflect something other
than the worst-case operating scenario for blast furnace gas combustion
and are therefore irrelevant for establishing attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response: As the commenter states, actual flaring data is not in
itself a requirement for SIP approval. The state's arguments for
removing the flare limit hinge on the concept that the facility intends
to and is able to use all of its process gas in its combustion units,
minimizing flare usage, and that flare usage events correspond to
overall facility emissions below the SIP allowable levels. EPA's
proposed disapproval simply pointed out that no historical flaring data
was provided.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is disapproving Indiana's December 10, 2009, submittal
requesting a SIP revision to remove the SO2 emission limit
on the blast furnace gas flare at ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor in Porter
County. The commenters on the proposed disapproval contend primarily
that the facility's blast furnace gas flare does not need an emission
limit in order to maintain the NAAQS. The comments did not demonstrate
that the revised SIP satisfactorily addresses the results of removing
an emission limit that had had the effect of requiring the facility to
maintain a specific sulfur content in its blast furnace gas. Nor did
other information in the record provide a basis to conclude that this
SIP revision satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(l).
Accordingly, EPA is disapproving the submittal.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This site-specific action is exempt from review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law

and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain an unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This SIP disapproval under section 110 will not in-and-of itself create
any new rules but simply disapproves a state rule proposed for
inclusion into the SIP.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 rule 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.
section 804(2).

Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 25, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.

0
2. Section 52.781 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.781  Rules and regulations.

* * * * *
    (h) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving the December 10, 2009
submittal of 326 IAC 7-4-14 as a revision to the Indiana SIP.
[FR Doc. 2013-30885 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9179-9180]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC16-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725J); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-725J (Definition of the
Bulk Electric System).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 25,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-6-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725J, Definition of the Bulk Electric System
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0259
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725J information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: On December 20, 2012, the Commission issued Order No.
773, a Final Rule approving NERC's modifications to the definition of
``bulk electric system'' and the Rules of Procedure exception process
to be effective July 1, 2013. On April 18, 2013, in Order No. 773-A,
the Commission largely affirmed its findings in Order No. 773. In Order
Nos. 773 and 773-A, the Commission directed NERC to modify the
definition of bulk electric system in two respects: (1) Modify the
local network exclusion (exclusion E3) to remove the 100 kV minimum
operating voltage to allow systems that include one or more looped
configurations connected below 100 kV to be eligible for the local
network exclusion; and (2) modify the exclusions to ensure that
generator interconnection facilities at or above 100 kV connected to
bulk electric system generators identified in inclusion I2 are not
excluded from the bulk electric system.
    Type of Respondents: Generator owners, distribution providers,
other NERC-registered entities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.
    \2\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $62.38/hour =
Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure (wages plus
benefits) comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The figure is for an
electric engineer (Occupational Code: 17-2071).

                                                   FERC-725J (Definition of the Bulk Electric System)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                                          Number of    Annual  number   Total number     burden and       Total annual       Cost per
                                                         respondents    of responses    of responses      cost per      burden hours and  respondent ($)
                                                                       per respondent                   response \2\   total annual cost
                                                                  (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)        (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generator Owners and Distribution Providers                        20               1              20        94 hrs.;        1,880 hrs.;          $5,864
 (Exception Request).................................                                                          $5,864           $117,274
All Registered Entities (Implementation Plans and                 186               1             186       350 hrs.;       65,100 hrs.;         $21,833
 Compliance).........................................                                                         $21,833         $4,060,938
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................................  ..............  ..............             206  ..............       66,980 hrs.;         $27,697
                                                                                $4,178,212
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection;

and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: February 18, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03838 Filed 2-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 155 (Monday, August 16, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45630-45631]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0002; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Mineola, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revokes the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Mineola Wisener Field, Mineola, TX. The
FAA is taking this action as the result of the cancellation of the
instrument procedures at this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 2, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revokes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Mineola Wisener Field, Mineola, TX, due to the
cancellation of the instrument procedures at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 10889; February 23, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0002
to revoke the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Mineola Wisener Field, Mineola, TX. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revokes the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to at Mineola Wisener
Field, Mineola, TX; and updates the city in the header of the airspace
legal description from Mineola, TX, to Mineola/Quitman, TX, to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database for Wood County Airport-Collins
Field, Mineola/Quitman, TX.
    This action is the result of the cancellation of the instrument
procedures at Mineola Wisener Field, Mineola, TX.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Mineola/Quitman, TX [Amended]

Wood County Airport-Collins Field, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]44'32'' N, long. 95[deg]29'47'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Wood County Airport-Collins Field, and
within 3.8 miles east and 5.7 miles west of the 182[deg] bearing
from the Wood County Airport-Collins Field extending from the 6.4-
mile radius of Wood County Airport-Collins Field to 21.3 miles south
of Wood County Airport-Collins Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 11, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-17443 Filed 8-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12247-12248]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06285]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9991-26-ORD]

Human Studies Review Board Advisory Committee; Request for
Nominations to the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites
nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates with expertise
in the areas of toxicology, bioethics, and statistics to be considered
for appointment to its Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) federal
advisory committee. HSRB vacancies will be filled in the fall of 2019.
In addition to this Federal Register Notice, additional sources of
nominations may be used to obtain a balanced committee.

DATES: Submit nominations by May 16, 2019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 6, 2006, the Agency published a final rule for the
protection of human subjects in research (71 FR 24 6138) that called
for creating a new, independent human studies review board (i.e.,
HSRB). The HSRB is a federal advisory committee operating in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec.  9
(Pub. L. 92-463). The HSRB provides advice, information, and
recommendations to EPA on issues related to scientific and ethical
aspects of human subjects research. The major objectives of the HSRB
are to provide advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals
and protocols that include human subjects; (2) reports of completed
research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen EPA's programs
for protection of human subjects of research. Typically, the HSRB
reviews protocols and completed studies involving pesticide studies,
such as worker exposure studies with agricultural handlers applying
pesticides in field conditions; janitorial maintenance personnel
applying antimicrobial pesticides in commercial settings; and field
efficacy studies for skin applied insect repellent products. The HSRB
reports to the EPA Administrator through EPA's Science Advisor. General
information concerning the HSRB, including its charter, current
membership, and

activities can be found on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.
    HSRB members serve as special government employees or regular
government employees. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator
for either two or three year terms with the possibility of
reappointment for additional terms, with a maximum of six years of
service. The HSRB convenes on average four times a year, with most of
the meetings being virtual. The average workload for HSRB members is
approximately 20 hours per meeting, including the time spent at the
meeting. Responsibilities of HSRB members include reviewing extensive
background materials prior to meetings of the Board, preparing draft
responses to Agency charge questions, attending Board meetings,
participating in the discussion and deliberations at these meetings,
drafting assigned sections of meeting reports, and assisting with the
finalization of HSRB reports. EPA compensates special government
employees for their time and provides reimbursement for travel and
other incidental expenses associated with official government business
related to the HSRB meetings. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an
effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages
nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups, as well
as from a variety of backgrounds (e.g., industry, non-profit
organizations, academia, and government).
    Candidates not selected for HSRB membership at this time may be
considered for HSRB membership as vacancies arise in the future or for
service as consultants to the HSRB.
    Members of the HSRB are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part
2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA
in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, each nominee
will be asked to submit confidential financial information that fully
discloses, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment,
stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support.
The information provided is strictly confidential and will not be
disclosed to the public. Before a candidate is considered further for
service on the HSRB, EPA will evaluate each candidate to assess whether
there is any conflict of financial interest, appearance of a lack of
impartiality, or prior involvement with matters likely to be reviewed
by the Board.
    Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria,
including: The professional background, expertise, and experience that
would contribute to the diversity of perspectives of the committee;
interpersonal, oral, and written communication skills and other
attributes that would contribute to the HSRB's collaborative process;
consensus building skills; absence of any financial conflicts of
interest or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, or lack of
independence, or bias; and the availability to participate in meetings
and administrative sessions, participate in teleconferences, develop
policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare
recommendations and advice in reports.
    Nominations should include a resume or curriculum vitae providing
the nominee's educational background, qualifications, leadership
positions in national associations or professional societies, relevant
research experience and publications along with a short (one page)
biography describing how the nominee meets the above criteria and other
information that may be helpful in evaluating the nomination, as well
as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime
telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate.
    To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach
efforts, nominees are requested to inform the Agency of how you learned
of this opportunity.
    Final selection of HSRB members is a discretionary function of the
Agency and will be announced on the HSRB website at https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board as soon as selections are
made.

ADDRESSES: Submit your nominations by May 16, 2019, using any of the
following methods:
    Email: Submit nominations electronically using the subject line:
``HSRB Membership 2019'' to [email protected].
    USPS Mail: Human Studies Review Board, DFO, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail code: 8105R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand or Courier Delivery: Human Studies Review Board, DFO, Room
41249, EPA, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
MC8105R, Washington, DC 20004. Deliveries are accepted from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O'Farrell, Office of the
Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 564-8451, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

    Dated: March 13, 2019.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2019-06285 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 18071]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Virtual Public
Meeting

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In preparation for the International Civil Aviation
Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) meeting to be held
April 24-April 28, 2017, in Montreal, Canada, the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety announce a virtual public meeting.

DATES: The virtual public meeting will be held on Thursday, April 20,
2017 from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The virtual public meeting will be held via WebEx.
Participants are requested to register by using the following email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include your name,
organization, and email address. WebEx video and telephone conference
information will be provided prior to the meeting to those who
register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the meeting can be
directed to Ms. Janet McLaughlin, Director, Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, ADG-1, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
9432, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Questions in advance of the
meeting for PHMSA can be directed to Mr. Kevin Leary, International
Standards Specialist, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, PHH-10, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information and viewpoints provided by
stakeholders are requested as the United States delegation prepares for
the International Civil Aviation Organization's Dangerous Goods Panel
meeting to be held April 24-April 28, 2017, in Montreal, Canada. Copies
of working papers, informal papers, the meeting agenda and report will
be made available at the following Web page: http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/WG17.aspx.
    Representatives from the FAA and PHMSA will be participating. The
virtual meeting is intended to be informal, non-adversarial, and to
facilitate the public comment process. No individual will be subject to
questioning by any other participant. Government representatives may
ask questions to clarify statements. Unless otherwise stated, any
statement made during the meetings by a FAA or PHMSA representative
should not be construed as an official position of the US government.
    The meeting will be open to all persons, subject to the capacity of
the WebEx virtual meeting. Every effort will be made to accommodate all
persons wishing to attend. The FAA and PHMSA will try to accommodate
all speakers, subject to time constraints.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2017.
Angela H. Stubblefield,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials
Safety, FAA.
William Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA.
[FR Doc. 2017-07577 Filed 4-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 41843-41845]
[DOCID:fr19jy10-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 12, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-77-000.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S. LLC, PPL Corporation.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, Request for Waivers of Filing Requirements and
Confidential Treatment of Agreement and Work Papers of PPL Corporation
and E.ON U.S. LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100628-5186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Monday, August 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: EC10-80-000.
    Applicants: Entegra Power, Sundevil Power Holdings LLC, Gila River
Power, L.P.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under section 203
of the FPA, Request for Waiver of Certain Commission Requirements, and
Requests for Confidential Treatment and Expedited Treatment of Entegra
Power Group LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER01-48-018.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Application of Powerex Corp. for designation as a
Category 1 Seller etc.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-3103-023.
    Applicants: Astoria Energy LLC.
    Description: Astoria Energy LLC response to Commission inquiry
(July 9, 2010).
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-656-007.
    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (U.S.), L.P.
    Description: Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis for the
Southwest Power Pool Region of Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1047-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service and
Interconnection Agreement with Monterey Regional Waste Management
District.
    Filed Date: 07/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100707-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Wednesday, July 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1113-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance Filing to Revise WD Tariff to be effective 4/28/
2010.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. et. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1388-001.
    Applicants: Laredo Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Description: Laredo Ridge Wind, LLC submits a supplement to its
market-based rate tariff application.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1389-001.
    Applicants: Taloga Wind, LLC.
    Description: Taloga Wind, LLC submits a supplement to its Market-
Based Rate Application.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1406-001.
    Applicants: Lake Cogen, Ltd.
    Description: Lake Cogen, Ltd. submits tariff filing per 35: Lake
Cogen--FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 1 to be effective 6/9/2010.

    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1416-001.
    Applicants: Pasco Cogen, Ltd.
    Description: Pasco Cogen, Ltd. submits tariff filing per 35: Pasco
Cogen--FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 1, to be effective 6/10/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1723-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits amendment to
revisions to the Formula Rate Tariff to be effective 9/1/10.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1724-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits amendment to
certain tariff revisions to the Restated Power Service Agreement with
WPPI Energy to be effective 9/1/10.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1730-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy, LLC.
    Description: Great Bay Energy, LLC et al submits an Application for
Market-Based Rate Authorization, Designation of Category 1 Status et
al.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1731-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy I, LLC.
    Description: Great Bay Energy, LLC et al submits an Application for
Market-Based Rate Authorization, Designation of Category 1 Status et
al.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-0205.
    Comment Date: 5p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1734-000.
    Applicants: MXenergy Electric Inc.
    Description: MXenergy Electric Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: MXenergy Electric Inc. MBR Tariff to be effective 7/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1735-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2010-07-08 CAISO New
Markets Recalculation Window to be effective 10/6/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100708-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1736-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits revisions to
the Restated Power Service Agreement with Alger Delta Cooperative
Electric Association, effective 9/1/10.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1737-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits certain
tariff revisions to the Restated Power Service Agreement etc to be
effective 9/1/10.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1738-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co submits revisions to the
Restated Power Service Agreement to be effective 9/1/10.
    Filed Date: 07/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Thursday, July 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1739-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: Entergy OpCos OATT Baseline to be effective 7/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1740-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement and interconnection construction
service agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1741-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company.
    Description: Duquesne Light Company submits its Notice of
Cancellation of the Connection and Site Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1742-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 35.12: EGSL OATT Concurrence to be effective 12/31/1998.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1743-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PSEG Energy
Resources & Trade LLC, PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, PSEG Fossil LLC,
PSEG Nuclear LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Commission's Affiliate
Restrictions Regulations under 18 CFR 35.39 of the PSEG Companies.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1744-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Texas, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.12:
ETI OATT Concurrence to be effective 7/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1745-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Louisiana, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: ELL OATT Concurrence to be effective 7/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1746-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: EMI Baseline to be effective 7/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1747-000.
    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, Inc.

    Description: Entergy New Orleans, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: ENOI OATT Concurrence to be effective 7/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1748-000.
    Applicants: Ormet Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Ormet Power Marketing LLC submits Notice of
Cancellation of FERC Electric Rate Schedule No 1.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100712-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1749-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Request of ISO New England, Inc for limited waiver of
NAESB WEQ Standards.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100712-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1750-000.
    Applicants: Stream Energy Pennsylvania, LLC.
    Description: Application of Stream Energy Pennsylvania, LLC for
market-based rate authority and granting of waivers and blanket
authorizations.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100712-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1751-000.
    Applicants: SGE Energy Sourcing, LLC.
    Description: SGE Energy Sourcing, LLC submits Application for
Market-Based Rate Authority and Granting of Waivers and Blanket
Authorization.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100712-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1752-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits the Fifth Revised Agreement 66, a
Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100712-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-26-004.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100709-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday, July 30, 2010

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. e.t. on the specified comment date. It is
not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a
compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17546 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6103-6105]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1513-002.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5312.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1627-001; ER12-60-002; ER10-1632-002.
    Applicants: Tenaska Power Services Co., Tenaska Washington
Partners, L.P., Tenaska Power Management, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Tenaska Washington
Partners, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5315.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2319-005; ER10-2320-005; ER10-2317-004; ER10-
2322-006; ER10-2324-005; ER10-2325-004; ER10-2332-005; ER10-2326-006;
ER10-2327-007; ER10-2328-005; ER10-2343-006; ER10-2331-006; ER11-4609-
004; ER10-2330-006.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, Triton Power
Michigan LLC, BE Allegheny LLC, BE CA LLC, BE Ironwood LLC, BE KJ LLC,
BE Rayle LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE Louisiana LLC, Cedar Brakes I, L.L.C.,
Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C., Central Power & Lime LLC, Cedar
Brakes II, L.L.C., J.P. Morgan Commodities Canada Corporation.
    Description: BE Alabama LLC, et al. Notice of Non-Material Change
in Status.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4219-001.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing to be effective 5/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-316-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Revision to MT OATT Schedule 3
Regarding Self-Supply to be effective 12/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5269.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-925-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company--Topsham Hydro Partners LP
Interconnection Agreement. to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-926-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company--Robbins Lumber, Inc.
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-927-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2289 Southwestern Power Administration Loss
Compensation to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-928-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: NCEMC and NCMPA NITSA Revisions to be effective 1/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-929-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: SGIA WDAT SERV AG SCE-TDBU SCE-PPD 9687 Transport
Fontana Roof Top Solar Project to be effective 1/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-930-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: SGIA WDAT SERV AG SCE-TDBU SCE-PPD 1901 CA St Redlands
Roof Top Solar Project to be effective 1/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-931-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of SGIA WDAT SERV AG with SCE-
GPS for Site 31 Project to be effective 8/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2012.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-932-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 1765R5 Kansas City Power and Light GMO NITSA NOAS to
be effective 12/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-933-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 20120130--BHCE Notice of Cancellation to be effective
12/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-934-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: First Revised Service Agreement No. 2437; Queue No.
V2-025 to be effective 12/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-935-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Service Agreement 216-Added Points of Delivery and
Direct Assignment Charge to be effective 3/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-936-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Revisions to Update SPA's Pricing Zone Rate to be
effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5270.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-937-000.
    Applicants: Wildcat Power Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 3/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5271.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-940-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp's cancellation of Powerex service
agreements.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5308.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-941-000.
    Applicants: Seneca Energy II, LLC.
    Description: Petition of Seneca Energy II, LLC for Waiver of Show
of Interest Deadline for ISO-NE FCA 7.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5309.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-942-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation.

    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5316.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000.
    Applicants: Pocahontas Prairie Wind, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Pocahontas
Prairie Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000.
    Applicants: Astoria Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Astoria
Generating Company, L.P.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000.
    Applicants: Elizabethtown Energy, LLC, Lumberton Energy, LLC,
Hatchet Ridge Wind, LLC, Lyonsdale Biomass, LLC, ReEnergy Sterling CT
Limited Partnership, Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C., Camden Plant
Holding, L.L.C., Dartmouth Power Associates Limited Partnership,
Elmwood Park Power, LLC, Newark Bay Cogeneration Partnership, L.P.,
Pedricktown Cogeneration Company LP, York Generation Company LLC,
Boralex Ashland LP, Boralex Fort Fairfield LP, Boralex Livermore Falls
LP, Boralex Stratton Energy LP, Black River Generation, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Elizabethtown
Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12.
    Accession Number: 20120130-5317.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12.

    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
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: January 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2712 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P