[Federal Register: May 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29336-29337]
[DOCID:fr25my10-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

ILP Effectiveness Evaluation 2010; Georgia Power Company; et al.;
Notice of Interviews, Teleconferences, Regional Workshops and Multi-
Stakeholder Technical Conference on The Integrated Licensing Process

May 18, 2010.

ILP Effectiveness Evaluation 2010..  Docket No. AD10-7-000.
Georgia Power Company..............  Project No. 2237-013.
Public Service Company of New        Project No. 7528-004.
 Hampshire.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company.....  Project No. 803-068.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company.....  Project No. 2106-059.
PPL, Montana, LLC..................  Project No. 2301-019.
Energy Northwest...................  Project No. 2244-022.
Appalachian Power Company..........  Project No. 2210-169
Appalachian Power Company..........  Project No. 739-022.
Public Service Company of Colorado.  Project No. 400-051
Public Service Company of Colorado.  Project No. 12589-001.
Green Island Power Authority.......  Project No. 13-023.
City of Seattle....................  Project No. 2144-038.
Public Utility District of           Project No. 2157-188.
 Snohomish Co., WA.
Northern Lights, Inc...............  Project No. 2594-013.
Onyx Specialty Papers, Inc.........  Project No. 2985-006.
Mahoning Creek Hydro. Co., LLC.....  Project No. 12555-004.
Vermont Marble Power Division of     Project No. 2558-029.
 Omya Inc.
FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC.........  Project No. 2615-037.
Douglas County PUD.................  Project No. 2149-131.

    As part of our commitment to ensuring the effectiveness of the
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) is undertaking a second effectiveness evaluation. To
facilitate this review, FERC has contracted with Kearns & West to
conduct the 2010 ILP Effectiveness Evaluation. This effort includes
conducting interviews and teleconferences with a cross-section of
stakeholders, four regional workshops, and a multi-stakeholder
effectiveness technical conference in Washington, DC. We invite
stakeholders to provide lessons learned from their experience as a
participant in the ILP.

Interviews and Teleconferences

    Over the next few weeks, members of Kearns & West will be
conducting phone interviews with a number of representatives of
agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, licensees, Commission
staff, and others involved in the above-identified hydropower licensing
proceedings. Applicants in these proceedings have completed the pre-
filing efforts and filed license applications using the ILP. Other
participants in these or other ILP proceedings are encouraged to share
their thoughts at the workshops and technical conference. Following the
completion of the interviews, three teleconferences by sectors (i.e.
applicants, resource agencies and tribes, and non-governmental
organizations) will be held between July 19 and July 30, 2010.

Regional Effectiveness Workshops

    Commission staff will hold four regional workshops on the ILP in
September 2010. The purpose of the regional workshops is to seek
further feedback on experiences in the ILP and to explore ideas to
better implement the ILP. Because of ex parte concerns, discussions
will be limited to process rather than the merits of any proceeding
before the Commission.
    FERC is exploring hosting the Regional Effectiveness Workshops in
the following locations: New York, California, Virginia or North
Carolina, and Washington State.
    The workshops are open to the public and all interested parties are
invited to attend and participate. Meeting details and logistics will
be noticed and posted on the Commission's Web page and calendar (http:/
/www.ferc.gov/).

Multi-Stakeholder ILP Effectiveness Technical Conference

    A one-day, multi-stakeholder technical conference will be held on
Wednesday, November 3, 2010, from 11 a.m. (EST) to 3 p.m., in the
Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NW., Washington, DC. The technical conference will
focus on gathering information to evaluate the effectiveness of the ILP
and refining ideas to better implement the ILP. The technical
conference is open to the public and all interested parties are invited
to attend and participate.
    We are exploring opportunities for remote listening, participating,
and viewing the Technical Conference. Final details will be noticed and
posted no later than October 1, 2010.
    For additional information, please contact David Turner at 202-502-
6091 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12497 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19806-19808]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07132]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0010; FRL-9539-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Birmingham Limited Maintenance Plan
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama,
through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), via
a letter dated September 15, 2020. The SIP revision includes the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Birmingham, Alabama Area (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Birmingham Area'' or ``Area''). The Birmingham
Area is comprised of Jefferson and Shelby Counties. EPA is approving
the Birmingham Area LMP because it provides for the maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Birmingham Area through the end of
the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period. This action makes
certain commitments related to maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Birmingham Area federally enforceable as part of the
Alabama SIP.

DATES: This rule is effective May 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0010. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials can either be retrieved
electronically via www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA
established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per
million (ppm), averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at
0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18,
1997).\1\ EPA set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-
hour NAAQS would be more protective of human health, especially for
children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a
pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them further by lowering the
level for both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Birmingham
Area, which includes Jefferson and Shelby Counties, as nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the designation became effective
on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). Similarly, on May
21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA designated the
Birmingham Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This designation became effective on July 20, 2012. See 77 FR
30088. On November 16, 2017, areas were designated for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The Birmingham Area was again designated attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an effective date
of January 16, 2018. See 82 FR 54232 (November 16, 2017).
    A state may submit a request that EPA redesignate a nonattainment
area that is attaining the NAAQS to attainment, and if the area has met
other required criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
EPA may approve the redesignation request.\2\ One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending ten years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as
necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly
corrected. Eight years after the effective date of redesignation, the
state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA
section 175A(b) (i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\3\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 9. EPA clarified
in three subsequent

guidance memos that certain areas could meet the CAA section 175A
requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that the area was
unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using information such as
the area's design value \4\ being well below the standard and the area
having a historically stable design value.\5\ EPA refers to a
maintenance plan containing this streamlined demonstration as an LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September
4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \4\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone area is the
highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \5\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas,'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas,'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can be
found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may
demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the
various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs
have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS.
As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must
still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the
Calcagni memo, including: An attainment emissions inventory, provisions
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a state
seeking an LMP must still submit its section 175A maintenance plan as a
revision to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures.
While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect
to certain NAAQS,\6\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section
175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the
previous guidance memos.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment for the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
    \7\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (approval of the
second ten-year LMP for the Grant County 1971 SO2
maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on February 9,
2022, see 87 FR 7404, EPA proposed to approve Birmingham's LMP because
the State made a showing that the Area's ozone concentrations are well
below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been historically stable and
that it met the other maintenance plan requirements. The details of
Alabama's submission and the rationale for EPA's action are explained
in the NPRM. Comments on the February 9, 2022, NPRM were due on or
before March 11, 2022. EPA received only one comment, which was in
support of the February 9, 2022, NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the Birmingham Area LMP for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by ADEM on September 17, 2020,
as a revision to the Alabama SIP.\8\ EPA is approving the Birmingham
Area LMP because it includes a sufficient update of the various
elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan approved by
EPA for the first 10-year portion of the maintenance period (including
emissions inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and verification
of continued attainment, and contingency provisions) and retains the
relevant provisions of the SIP under sections 110(k) and 175A of the
CAA. EPA also finds that the Birmingham Area qualifies for the LMP
option and that the Birmingham Area LMP is sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Birmingham Area over
the second 10-year maintenance period (i.e., through 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The SIP revision was adopted by ADEM on September 16, 2020,
and submitted by ADEM as a revision to the Alabama SIP on September
17, 2020, via a letter dated September 15, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 30, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
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. In Sec.  52.50(e), amend the table by adding an entry for ``1997 8-
Hour Ozone Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for the Birmingham
Area'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable       State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/effective    EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone Second 10-Year  Jefferson County            9/16/2020  4/6/2022, [Insert
 Limited Maintenance Plan for      and Shelby County.                     citation of
 the Birmingham Area.                                                     publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-07132 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26839]
[DOCID:fr12my10-133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0016]

Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service under
Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Response to Comments; Issuance of Metrics and Standards.

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

SUMMARY: Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (Division B of Pub. L. 110-432) (PRIIA) charged the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak jointly and in consultation
with other parties, with developing new or improving existing metrics
and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service quality
of intercity passenger train operations. In compliance with the
statute, the FRA and Amtrak jointly drafted performance metrics and
standards for intercity passenger rail service and, on March 13, 2009,
posted a draft document, entitled ``Proposed Metrics and Standards for
Intercity Passenger Rail Service,'' on the FRA's Web site.
Simultaneously, the FRA published a notice in the Federal Register (74
FR 10983) requesting comments on the Proposed Metrics and Standards
from the Surface Transportation Board, rail carriers over whose rail
lines Amtrak trains operate, States, Amtrak employees, nonprofit
employee organizations representing Amtrak employees, and groups
representing Amtrak passengers. Seventeen comments were submitted to
the corresponding docket (number FRA-2009-0016) at regulations.gov by
the end of the comment period on March 27, 2009 and as a result, the
FRA and Amtrak have jointly made, and are jointly issuing, revisions to
the Metrics and Standards. The final version of the Metrics and
Standards is posted on the FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/
content/2165.

DATES: These Metrics and Standards are in effect as of May 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Neil E. Moyer, Chief, Financial and
Economic Analysis Division, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs,
Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Edgar E. Courtemanch,
Sr. Principal, Operations Service Planning, Amtrak (e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2010.
Neil E. Moyer,
Chief, Financial and Economic Analysis Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-11261 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11911-11912]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-443-000]

Helios Energy, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

February 27, 2008.
    Helios Energy, LLC (Helios) filed an application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based
rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary
services at market-based rates. Helios also requested waivers of
various Commission regulations. In

particular, Helios requested that the Commission grant blanket approval
under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Helios.
    On February 26, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
request for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The
Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by Helios, should file a protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2007). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests
using the FERC Online link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
March 27, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Helios is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Helios, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Helios' issuance of securities or assumptions of
liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4164 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43038-43040]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4234; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-3]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Kansas Towns;
Belleville, KS; Johnson, KS; Marysville, KS; Pittsburg, KS; and
Washington, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Belleville Municipal Airport, Belleville,
KS; Stanton County Municipal Airport, Johnson, KS; Marysville Municipal
Airport, Marysville, KS; Atkinson Municipal Airport, Pittsburg, KS; and
Washington County Veteran's Memorial Airport, Washington, KS.
Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation
of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV)
procedures have made these actions necessary for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above
airports. This action also updates the geographic coordinates at
Marysville Municipal Airport, Marysville, KS; and Atkinson Municipal
Airport, Pittsburg, KS; and the name of Washington County Veteran's
Memorial Airport (formerly Washington County Memorial Airport) to
coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 amends Class E
airspace at Belleville Municipal Airport, Belleville, KS; Stanton
County Municipal Airport, Johnson, KS; Marysville Municipal Airport,
Marysville, KS; Atkinson Municipal Airport, Pittsburg, KS; and
Washington County Veteran's Memorial Airport, Washington, KS.

History

    On March 29, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace at
Belleville Municipal Airport, Belleville, KS; Stanton County Municipal
Airport, Johnson, KS; Marysville Municipal Airport, Marysville, KS;
Atkinson Municipal Airport, Pittsburg, KS; and Washington County
Veteran's Memorial Airport, Washington, KS (81 FR 17420) Docket No.
FAA-2016-4234. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
found an editorial error in the legal description for Marysville, KS;
and the name of the town in the airspace designation and legal
description for Atkinson Municipal Airport. These errors are corrected
in this rule.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, 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 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface by removing the approach extensions at Belleville Municipal
Airport, Belleville, KS; Stanton County Municipal Airport, Johnson, KS;
Marysville Municipal Airport, Marysville, KS; and Atkinson Municipal
Airport, Pittsburg, KS, due to decommissioning of NDBs, removal of NDB
approaches, and the implementation of RNAV standard instrument approach
procedures at the airports. Also, controlled airspace at Washington
County Veteran's Memorial Airport is reduced from a 7.3-mile radius to
a 6.3-mile radius of the airport. This action also updates the
geographic coordinates of Marysville Municipal Airport, Marysville, KS,
and Atkinson Municipal Airport, Pittsburg, KS, as well as noting the
correct town for Atkinson Municipal Airport. Additionally, this action
notes the name of Washington County Veteran's Memorial Airport
(formerly Washington County Memorial Airport) to coincide with the FAAs
aeronautical database. This rule is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations under standard instrument approach
procedures at the above airports.

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.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Belleville, KS [Amended]

Belleville Municipal Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]49'04'' N., long. 97[deg]39'35'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Belleville Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Johnson, KS [Amended]

Stanton County Municipal Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]35'07'' N., long. 101[deg]43'56'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Stanton County Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Marysville, KS [Amended]

Marysville Municipal Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]51'23'' N., long. 96[deg]37'51'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Marysville Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Pittsburg, KS [Amended]

Pittsburg, Atkinson Municipal Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]26'58'' N., long. 94[deg]43'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Atkinson Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Washington, KS [Amended]

Washington County Veteran's Memorial Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]44'07'' N., long. 97[deg]02'51'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile

radius of Washington County Veteran's Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 22, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-15406 Filed 6-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26374-26377]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0360]

Hours of Service of Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles;
Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Transportation of Agricultural
Commodities

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT

ACTION: Announcement of regulatory guidance

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces regulatory guidance to clarify the
applicability of the ``Agricultural commodity'' exception in the
``Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers'' regulations. This regulatory
guidance clarifies the exception with regard to: drivers operating
unladen vehicles traveling either to pick up an agricultural commodity
or returning from a delivery point; drivers engaged in trips beyond 150
air-miles from the source of the agricultural commodity; determining
the ``source'' of agricultural commodities under the exemptions; and
how the exception applies when agricultural commodities are loaded at
multiple sources during a trip. This regulatory guidance is issued to
ensure consistent understanding and application of the exception by
motor carriers and State officials enforcing HOS rules identical to or
compatible with FMCSA's requirements.

DATES: This guidance is applicable on June 7, 2018 and expires June 7,
2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0360'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, Public Law
104-59, sec. 345, 109 Stat. 568. 613 (Nov. 28, 1995) (the Act),
provided the initial exception for drivers transporting agricultural
commodities or farm supplies for agricultural purposes. The Act limited
the exception to a 100 air-mile radius from the source of the
commodities or distribution point for the farm supplies and during the
planting and harvesting seasons as determined by the applicable State.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) revised this provision, redesignated it
as new section 229 of Title II of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement
Act of 1999, and defined the terms ``agricultural commodity'' and
``farm supplies for agricultural purposes.'' Public Law 109-59,
sections 4115 and 4130, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743 (Aug. 10, 2005).
These terms are now defined in 49 CFR 395.2.
    Most recently, the statute was amended by section 32101(d) of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law
112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778 (July 6, 2012). This provision revised the
description of the exception's scope and extended the applicable
distance from 100 air-miles to 150 air-miles from the source.

III. Background

    The focus of today's guidance is limited to the application of the
150 air-mile exception for the transportation of ``agricultural
commodities,'' 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1). It does not address ``farm supplies
for agricultural purposes''

under Sec.  395.1(k)(2) or (3), since few questions have been raised
about their applicability, nor does it address the specifics of the
definition of an agricultural commodity as defined in Sec.  395.2.
While the regulatory provision governing the agricultural commodity
exception closely tracks the statutory provisions discussed above, the
language is susceptible to multiple interpretations, and the Agency
acknowledges that various stakeholders and enforcement officials in
different States have expressed inconsistent understandings of the
exception from time to time.

IV. Public Comments and Responses?>

    On December 20, 2017, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice
proposing regulatory guidance concerning the transportation of
agricultural commodities and requested public comment on the proposals
(82 FR 60360). The comment period ended on January 19, 2018, but was
extended to February 20, 2018 (83 FR 2765, Jan. 19, 2018). There were
566 comments submitted to the docket. Approximately one-half of them
addressed issues other than this regulatory guidance, such as
electronic logging devices (ELDs), other aspects of the HOS rules, and
other provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). Some commenters suggested specific revisions to the FMCSRs,
which are beyond the scope of regulatory guidance. Of the remaining
comments, most were supportive of the proposed guidance and suggested
only minor revisions. Many were from umbrella agricultural
associations, some representing as many as 15 other associations.
Additional details regarding the public comments are provided under the
topical headings below.
1. Unladen Vehicles (Question 34)
    Interpreted literally, the agricultural commodity exception could
be read as applicable only during the period during which the commodity
is being transported, and not to movements of an unladen commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) either traveling to pick up a load or returning
after a delivery. The Agency does not consider that view consistent
with the de-regulatory purpose of the exception since applying HOS
rules on these unladen trips would limit the relief that Congress
intended to grant, while needlessly complicating the regulatory
monitoring task that enforcement officials are asked to perform. It is
unreasonable to assume that the 1995 statute intended to exempt, for
example, farmers hauling soy beans from the field to an elevator, while
subjecting them to the full extent of the HOS regulations during the
empty return trip to the field to pick up the next load. The Agency has
therefore informally advised stakeholders that both legs of a trip are
covered. In the proposed guidance (Question 34), FMCSA sought to
clarify how the agricultural commodity exception applies to someone
driving an unladen CMV either to a source to pick up an agricultural
commodity or on a return trip following delivery of an agricultural
commodity. The proposed Guidance to Question 34 stated that the
agricultural commodity exception (Sec.  395.1(k)(1)) does apply while
driving unloaded to a source where an agricultural commodity will be
loaded, and to an unloaded return trip after delivering an agricultural
commodity, provided that the trip does not involve transporting other
cargo and the sole purpose of the trip is to complete the delivery or
pick up of of agricultural commodities, as defined in Sec.  395.2.
    Comments: All comments on this issue were supportive. The American
Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau) agrees with the Agency's
interpretation that unladen vehicles traveling to and from a source of
an agricultural commodity should be able to take advantage of the
agricultural commodity exception. The Oregon Cattleman's Association
supports FMCSA's view that time spent driving an unladen or empty
vehicle to or from a source of an agricultural commodity should be
exempt from the hours-of-service (HOS) provisions. The New Mexico Farm
and Livestock Bureau agrees, commenting that unladen vehicles hauling
to and from an agricultural source or multiple sources should fall
under the exception. A number of multiple-group filers commented that
the Agency must clearly define that unladen trucks are covered under
the agricultural exception. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) supports the revised guidance that would allow the
exception for drivers while driving unloaded to a source where an
agricultural commodity will be loaded, and to an unloaded return trip
after delivering an agricultural commodity. The Agricultural and Food
Transporters Conference, an affiliate of the American Trucking
Associations (ATA), commented that the Question 34 guidance is crucial
for the movement of agricultural commodities and farm supplies. When a
carrier is delivering an agricultural commodity, it must have the
ability to unload and travel back to reload, all while under the
exception. Not only does this minimize confusion for the carrier in
having to travel exempt and non-exempt over and over, but it also
significantly minimizes confusion for enforcement officials who are
working with the carriers.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees that the Sec.  395.1(k)(1)
exception should apply to all portions of a round-trip involving
agricultural commodities that occur within the 150 air-mile radius of
the source, regardless of whether the CMV is loaded or empty or whether
the destination is outside the 150 air-mile radius. The Guidance in
Question 34 to Sec.  395.1 is revised to this effect.
2. Loads Beyond a 150 Air-Mile Radius (Question 35)
    The Agency recognizes that some enforcement personnel and other
stakeholders have interpreted the agricultural commodity exception as
inapplicable to any portion of a trip if the destination exceeds 150
air-miles from the source. Under that reading, the word ``location'' in
Sec.  395.1(k)(1) is interpreted as reflecting only the final
destination of the load. FMCSA considers the statutory language, as
amended,\1\ and the implementing regulation \2\ to be ambiguous, given
the legislative intent to create an exempt zone with a radius of 150
air miles. The Agency believes that a narrow interpretation is
unwarranted. In the proposed regulatory guidance (Question 35), the
Agency stated that ``location'' means the outer limit of the exception
distance, i.e., 150 air-miles from the source. Thus, the Agency
proposed to interpret the exception as available to a driver
transporting agricultural commodities for a distance up to 150 air-
miles from the source, regardless of the distance between the source
and final destination or place of delivery.

Upon crossing the 150 air-mile point, however, the driver would be
subject to the HOS rules for the remainder of the trip to the
destination. The hours accumulated within the 150-mile radius are not
counted toward the driver's hours of service. Returning empty, the
driver would be subject to the HOS rules until returning within the 150
air-mile radius in which the trip began.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As amended by MAP-21, Public Law 112-141, 32101(d), 126
Stat. 778 (July 6, 2012), this statute reads:
    (1) Transportation of agricultural commodities and farm
supplies.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary under sections
31136 and 31502 regarding maximum driving and on-duty time for
drivers used by motor carriers shall not apply during planting and
harvest periods, as determined by each State, to--
    (A) Drivers transporting agricultural commodities from the
source of the agricultural commodities to a location within a 150-
air-mile radius from the source; . . .
    \2\ The regulatory exception reads:
    Agricultural operations. The provisions of this part shall not
apply during planting and harvesting periods, as determined by each
State, to drivers transporting
    (1) Agricultural commodities from the source of the agricultural
commodities to a location within a 150 air-mile radius from the
source;
    . . . 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1). The term ``agricultural commodity'' is
defined in 49 CFR 395.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Most commenters supported Question 35 as proposed, and
one commenter was completely opposed. The Farm Bureau requested the
Agency to modify Question 35 to simply state: ``The exception applies
to transportation during the initial 150-air miles from the source of
the commodity. Starting at zero from that point, the driver must then
begin recording his or her duty time, and the limits under the 11-hour,
14-hour, and 60/70-hour rules apply.'' The Florida Fruit and Vegetable
Association commented that the agricultural exception is unclear on how
it is to be applied beyond the 150 air-miles, and does not encompass
trucks returning once they have been assigned a specific pick-up.
Additionally, it is not clear how hours would be recorded if multiple
pickup points are involved. An individual commenter stated that the
proposed guidance is unreasonable and is likely to create unsafe
conditions where fatigued drivers are operating on the highway.
According to him, the term ``location'' in the phrase, ``from the
source of the agricultural commodities to a location within a 150 air-
mile radius from the source,'' can only mean the delivery location. He
states that under the proposed guidance, if a person is stopped outside
the 150 air-mile radius of the source, neither the motor carrier nor an
enforcement officer will be able to determine compliance with the law.
If a driver is exempt from part 395 some of the time, but has to comply
with all of part 395 at other times, it would be impossible to
determine compliance with HOS when the driver is not exempt. The
National Grain and Feed Association asked FMCSA to apply the HOS
regulations only to situations in which a driver operates beyond the
150-air mile radius. Therefore, starting at the time and location where
the vehicle goes past the 150-air mile distance, the driver must
maintain logs.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes it would be contrary to the purpose
of the exception to apply it to only one portion of the trip within the
150 air-mile radius. The Agency disagrees that it would be impossible
to determine HOS compliance outside the 150 air-mile radius.
Transporters are required to maintain records of duty status (paper or
AOBRD/ELD) and supporting documents when not operating under an
exception. Commercial vehicle inspectors are trained to ascertain
compliance with the HOS regulations, and would be able to do so as with
any other transporters who are not under an HOS exception at the time
of inspection.?>
3. Sources (Question 36)
    Several agricultural transporters have requested guidance on the
extent to which grain elevators or livestock sale barns, for example,
should be considered a ``source'' of agricultural commodities under
Sec.  395.1(k)(1). Historically, the nature of the commodities included
in the definition led to an informal conclusion that the ``source'' was
the location where the crops were grown or the animals raised. That
concept does not adequately address the aggregation and interim storage
of commodities. The identification of the source is more reasonably
defined by factors that include more than a farm or ranch.
    As long as the commodity retains its original form, a place where
the commodity is aggregated and stored may be treated as a ``source''
from which the 150 air-mile radius is measured.
    Comments: Those persons who commented on the issue agreed that
elevators and livestock markets are examples of ``sources'' other than
the original farm or field. Many suggested other broad examples that
they believe should be included. No one specifically objected to the
proposal. The Farm Bureau believes that logic and common sense dictate
that grain elevators and livestock markets are ``sources'' of
agricultural commodities. The Oregon Cattleman's Association agrees
with this position, and cites the dictionary definition of ``source''
as ``a point of origin'' and describes the challenges of loading at
such locations as virtually identical to loading at a farm or ranch.
Other commenters point out that feed mills and barns, as well as
processing plants that produce bulk animal feed, are often legitimately
viewed as sources. The Midwest Shipper's Association states that grain
elevators are often a source, and that other facilities are closely
related to elevators. These include facilities that clean and process
grain, soybeans and oilseed, as well as ethanol plants that ship
distiller grains.
    FMCSA Response: While an agricultural commodity may have several
``sources'' under Question 36 (e.g., for grain, both a field and an
elevator), the ``source'' necessarily excludes the point at which the
commodity is processed to such an extent that it is no longer in its
original form or does not otherwise meet the definition of an
agricultural commodity in 49 CFR 395.2. Question 36 to Sec.  395.1 has
been added to clarify that the source of an agricultural commodity
includes more than just the original location at the farm or field. The
Agency recognizes that further regulatory guidance may be necessary as
the industry and enforcement communities adjust to these clarifications
of Sec.  395.1.
4. Multiple Sources (Question 37)
    Many transporters have also asked how the agricultural commodity
exception would apply if the driver were to pick up partial loads at
two or more locations. Specifically, they asked whether a pick-up at a
subsequent source has the effect of extending the 150 air-mile radius,
i.e., restarting the calculation of the 150 air-mile distance. Previous
informal guidance has been that the 150 air-mile radius is based on the
first source of an agricultural commodity on a particular trip, and
that additional stops to load additional agricultural commodities do
not extend the 150-mile radius.
    Comments: Most commenters agreed that multiple pick-ups and
deliveries should be allowed, but that the 150 air-mile radius should
be measured from the last pick-up point, not the first point as
proposed. Other than the disagreement with that part of the proposal,
no one objected to allowing multiple pick-ups and deliveries. The Farm
Bureau believes that the exception should not be limited to one ``use''
each day, and all locations at which agricultural commodities are
loaded for shipment should qualify as a source. The Oregon Cattleman's
Association agrees, and points out that the alternative--limiting a
vehicle or driver to a single ``trip''--adds unnecessary complexity to
the analysis. Each of several loading stops during the duty day takes
place at what the industry views as a ``source''--the industry does not
think in terms of a single daily ``trip.'' The New Mexico Farm and
Livestock Bureau concurs that livestock markets and elevators are
properly viewed as the source of the commodity. The Colorado Farm
Bureau states that Congress did not intend to limit a driver or vehicle
to a single ``source'' each calendar day. The Iowa Cattlemen's
Association supports the Farm Bureau position.
    Commenters explained that drivers often must pick up agricultural
commodities at several locations to fill their vehicle. This is the
only reasonable approach to making a living hauling

agricultural products. It would be inefficient to operate below
capacity, and one stop may not have enough product to fill a truck.
    CVSA applauded efforts to update Agency guidance. It believes
greater clarity is needed regarding the loading of agricultural
commodities at multiple sources. It states that the exception should
begin with the first source, and that stopping after that initial
source should not restart the exception. In its view, the exception and
the 150 air-mile radius should be applied from the original source
only.
    FMCSA Response: Question 37 to Sec.  395.1 has been added to
clarify that multiple pick-ups are permissible but that the 150 air-
mile radius continues to be measured from the first pick-up point
regardless of the number of times commodities are loaded or offloaded.
The Agency agrees with CVSA's position that the exception should begin
with the first source only. FMCSA notes in the interest of safety that,
under a contrary interpretation that restarts the 150-mile exception
with each new source, a motor carrier could effectively extend the
exception indefinitely. The Agency did not intend to imply that a
carrier would be limited to one ``trip'' per day. A trip terminates
when all of the commodity has been offloaded or non-exempt freight or
products are added to the load. Thereafter, a new trip under the
agricultural exception could be started the same day by loading a
shipment of agricultural commodities at a different source. The 150
air-mile radius would then be measured from this new trip initiation
point.

V. Regulatory Guidance

    FMCSA issues Regulatory Guidance, Questions 34, 35, 36, and 37 to
49 CFR 395.1 as follows:

PART 395--Hours of Service of Drivers

Sec.  395.1  Scope of the rules in this part

    Question 34: Does the agricultural commodity exception (Sec.
395.1(k)(1)) apply to drivers while driving unloaded within 150 air-
miles of the place where an agricultural commodity will be loaded, and
to that portion of an unloaded return trip which occurs within a 150
air-mile radius of the place where the agricultural commodity was
loaded?
    Guidance: Yes, provided that the trip does not involve transporting
any non-agricultural cargo and the sole purpose of the trip is to make
a pick-up or delivery of agricultural commodities, as defined in Sec.
395.2. In that case, driving and on-duty time are not limited, nor do
other requirements of 49 CFR part 395 apply.?>
    Question 35: Does the agricultural commodity exception (Sec.
395.1(k)(1)) apply if the destination for the commodity is beyond the
150 air-mile radius from the source?
    Guidance: Yes, the exception applies to transportation during the
initial 150 air-miles from the source of the commodity, regardless of
the distance to the final destination. Once a driver operates beyond
the 150 air-mile radius of the source, 49 CFR part 395 applies. The
driver is then subject to the limits under the hours-of-service rules
and must record those hours. Once the hours-of-service rules begin to
apply on a given trip, they continue to apply for the duration of that
trip, until the driver crosses back into the area within 150 air-miles
of the original source of the commodities.
    Question 36: How is the ``source'' of the agricultural commodities
in Sec.  395.1(k)(1) determined?
    Guidance: The ``source'' of an agricultural commodity, as the term
is used in Sec.  395.1(k)(1), is the point at which an agricultural
commodity is loaded onto an unladen commercial motor vehicle. The
location may be any intermediate storage or handling location away from
the original source at the farm or field, provided the commodity
retains its original form and is not significantly changed by any
processing or packing. If a driver is making multiple trips, the first
trip, and the 150 air-mile exception around that source, terminate once
all agricultural products are offloaded at a delivery point. A new
source for a new trip may then be identified, and the 150 air-mile
radius for the exception will be around that source.
    For example, a sales barn where cattle are loaded may be treated as
a ``source,'' in addition to the location at which they were raised,
since cattle remain livestock. As another example, a place where heads
of lettuce are stored may become a ``source,'' provided they retain
their original form. An elevator where grain is collected and dried may
be a new ``source,'' again assuming that the grain is not milled or
similarly processed at the elevator.
    Question 37: How is the ``source of the agricultural commodities''
determined if the driver makes multiple pick-ups of the commodity en
route to the final destination?
    Guidance: When a driver loads some of an agricultural commodity at
a ``source'' and then loads more of that commodity at additional stops,
the first place where the commodity was loaded is the measuring point
for the 150 air-mile radius.

VI. Review Date for the Regulatory Guidance

    In accordance with section 5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, 129
Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), this regulatory guidance will be
posted on FMCSA's website, www.fmcsa.dot.gov. It expires June 7, 2023.
The Agency will consider whether the guidance should be withdrawn,
reissued for another period up to five years, or incorporated into the
safety regulations.

    Issued on: May 31, 2018.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-12250 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Table 5.4 Summary of Analytical Results: C 8 in Surface Water Letart Landfill Letart, WV Sample Date C 8 ( ug/ l) 002( LEACHATE BASIN) 11/ 25/ 2002 939 10/ 31/ 2002 645 9/ 27/ 2002 4.52 8/ 30/ 2002 2050 7/ 30/ 2002 1410 6/ 28/ 2002 Not Analyzed* 5/ 30/ 2002 1630 4/ 30/ 2002 443 3/ 28/ 2002 131 2/ 19/ 2002 355 1/ 25/ 2002 50.1 12/ 14/ 2001 36.1 11/ 27/ 2001 53.2 7/ 20/ 2001 159 7/ 25/ 2000 1350 4/ 3/ 2000 1900 1/ 14/ 2000 920 10/ 21/ 1999 3240 003 11/ 30/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 10/ 31/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 9/ 27/ 2002 0.17 8/ 30/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 7/ 30/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 6/ 28/ 2002 Not Analyzed* 5/ 30/ 2002 0.282 4/ 30/ 2002 0.0653 3/ 28/ 2002 0.198 2/ 19/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 1/ 25/ 2002 0.148 12/ 14/ 2001 0.39 STORMWATER RUNOFF 9/ 27/ 2002 50.9 RT 33 STREAM 10/ 31/ 2002 2.83 9/ 27/ 2002 2.24 8/ 30/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 5/ 30/ 2002 1.57 4/ 30/ 2002 0.845 3/ 28/ 2002 1.26 2/ 19/ 2002 3.92 1/ 25/ 2002 1.9 7/ 20/ 2001 2.01 7/ 31/ 2000 0.573 7/ 20/ 1999 2.23 7/ 23/ 1997 2 4/ 17/ 1996 1.8 BRINKER RUN 10/ 14/ 2002 0.0612 1/ 6/ 2004 1 of 2 Table 5.4 Consent Order Tables 1 Table 5.4 Summary of Analytical Results: C 8 in Surface Water Letart Landfill Letart, WV Sample Date C 8 ( ug/ l)

CAP RUNOFF 11/ 25/ 2002 65.1 10/ 31/ 2002 102 8/ 30/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 6/ 28/ 2002 Not Analyzed* 5/ 30/ 2002 371 4/ 30/ 2002 279 3/ 28/ 2002 Not Sampled 2/ 19/ 2002 No Flow Conditions 1/ 25/ 2002 119 * Samples were taken at the respective surface water locations. However, due to an error by the courier, the samples arrived at the lab warm and were not analyzed. Note: Analytical method changed as of November 2001 ( see Section 2.0 of DuPont ( 2003b) for details).

1/ 6/ 2004 2 of 2 Table 5.4 Consent Order Tables 1 Table 5.5 Summary of On site and Off site Exposure Pathways Evaluation Letart Landfill Letart, WV C 8 Impacted Media Pathway Assessment ( Complete or Incomplete) Comparison to Screening Criteria* Pathway Assessment ( Complete or Incomplete) Comparison to Screening Criteria* On Site SWMUs/ Landfilled Materials I  I  Soil I  I  Leachate ** C * 2050 ug/ l > 150 ug/ l C * 2050 ug/ l > 150 ug/ l Surface Water C 371 ug/ l > 150 ug/ l C 371 ug/ l > 150 ug/ l Groundwater I  I

C 8 Impacted Media Pathway Assessment [ Complete ( C) or Incomplete ( I)] Comparison to Screening Criteria* Off Site Drinking Water Wells  Letart C 0.139 ug/ l << 150 ug/ l Non drinking Water Wells  Letart C NQ(< 0.050) << 150 ug/ l Unused water sources  Letart I  Ohio River water C 0.128 ug/ l << 150 ug/ l ** Highest C 8 concentration ( since the landfill cap installation in April 2001) is shown. Exposure Pathways Evaluation * Highest value in category is compared to the screening criteria. Screening criteria was established by CATT of 240 mg/ kg for soil, 1360 ug/ l for aquatic life ( surface water), 150 ug/ l for drinking water. For complete exposure pathways, all water samples are compared to the drinking water screening criteria to be conservative. No comparison is made for incomplete exposure pathways. Human Health Exposure Pathways Ecological Exposure Pathways Exposure Pathways for Human and Ecological Receptors 1/ 6/ 2004 1 of 1 Tab 5.5 Consent Order Tables 1 Table 6.0 Summary of Off site Sampling Program ( C 8 Sampling) Dry Run Landfill Lubeck, WV Number of homes contacted ( 1) 75 Number of homes surveyed ( 1) 64 Number of wells identified ( 2) 41 Number of wells sampled ( 2) 37 Number of wells sampled that are used for drinking water 13 Number of cisterns identified ( 2) 17 Number of cisterns sampled ( 2) 8 Number of cisterns sampled that are used for drinking water 1 Number of springs identified ( 2) 8 Number of springs sampled ( 2) 8 Number of springs sampled that are used for drinking water 1 Total number of samples 53 Total number of collected samples used for drinking water 15 ( 1) During this investigation, homeowners/ residents identified within the sampling radius were contacted to determine residential water usage. Up to two contacts were attempted at each residence. After the second contact attempt, a voluntary survey was left at the residence. Because not all homeowners/ residences to the survey, the number of residences surveyed is less than the number of homes contacted.

( 2) Some water sources ( e. g. wells, cisterns, springs) identified during the survey were not sampled. In many cases, sampling of these water sources was refused by the homeowners/ residents. In other cases, the water sources were either not accessible or damaged. As a consequence, the number of water sources sampled was less than the number of water sources identified. Note: Field duplicates not considered in sample count. RESIDENTIAL SAMPLING FOR 1 MILE RADIUS Springs Samples Homes Wells Cisterns 1/ 6/ 2004 1 of 1 Tab 6.0 Consent Order Tables 1 TABLE 6.1 Summary of C 8 Analytical Results In Groundwater and Surface Water ( ug/ l) Dry Run Landfill ( Off site Wells, Springs, and Cisterns  One Mile Radius) Lubeck, WV C 8 Water Use * Sample Sample ID Sample Date ug/ l Comments Type OS ABBOTTRL 12/ 11/ 2001 0.0606 Drinking Water Well OS ABBOTTRL 4/ 11/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Drinking Water Well OS ABBOTTS 12/ 12/ 2001 0.22 Drinking Water Well OS ABBOTTS 4/ 11/ 2002 0.422 Drinking Water Well OS ANDERSONCD 12/ 13/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) Drinking Water Well OS ATKINSONJ2 1/ 9/ 2002 0.149 Drinking Water Well OS ATKINSONJ2 4/ 12/ 2002 0.264 Drinking Water Well OS ATKINSONM 12/ 12/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) Drinking Water Well OS BAKERH 12/ 14/ 2001 0.339 Drinking Water Well OS HOPKINSKE 12/ 11/ 2001 NQ (< 0.050) Drinking Water Well OS HORNBECKJW 12/ 13/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) Drinking Water Well OS MORRISONM 2/ 4/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Drinking Water Well OS NICHOLSONDH 12/ 11/ 2001 0.0505 Drinking Water Well OS PARKERJL 12/ 10/ 2001 0.177 Drinking Water Well OS SHEPHERDM 2/ 4/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Drinking Water Well OS WESTBROOKLM 12/ 12/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) Drinking Water Well OS SEEBAUGHR 2/ 26/ 2002 0.273 Drinking Water Spring OS NICHOLSONDH2 2/ 4/ 2002 0.242 Drinking Water Cistern OS ATKINSONJ1 1/ 9/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Misc. Well OS BAKERHK2 2/ 20/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Unused Well OS CHANEYG 2/ 14/ 2002 0.164 Unused Well OS COBBAJ 12/ 11/ 2001 0.0639 Misc. Well OS COBBAJ2 1/ 15/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well OS DAVISA2 2/ 13/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Unused Well OS GRIENERD1 2/ 5/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Misc. Well OS GROSED 2/ 15/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well OS HARRISRE 12/ 12/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well OS HOFMANNDE 12/ 12/ 2001 0.354 Unused Well OS HOPEWELL 2 1/ 26/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well OS JONESDR 12/ 13/ 2001 0.0614 Misc. Well OS KAUFMAND 1/ 11/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well OS LOBBINSJ 2/ 12/ 2002 0.078 Unused Well OS ROBERTSDR 1/ 18/ 2002 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well ND = Not Detected at or above the limit of detection ( LOD).

The listed LOD is approximate and varies by instrument and over time. NQ = Not Quantifiable. Detected at a level above the LOD and below the limit of quantification ( LOQ). All C 8 results are reported in ug/ l. Misc. = Miscellaneous water use is not used for drinking. livestock watering, gardening and any other non human consumption water uses. * Drinking Water ( highlighted in bold blue) indicates human consumption. Non drinking Water uses include Data highlighted in yellow are results for water sources located in the one mile radius that were resampled during the two mile radius sampling event.

1/ 6/ 2004 10: 00 AM 1 of 2 Tab 6.1 Consent Order Tables 1 ] TABLE 6.1 Summary of C 8 Analytical Results In Groundwater and Surface Water ( ug/ l) Dry Run Landfill ( Off site Wells, Springs, and Cisterns  One Mile Radius) Lubeck, WV C 8 Water Use Sample Sample ID Sample Date ug/ l Comments Type OS SHEPHERDP 12/ 14/ 2001 NQ (< 0.050) Misc. Well OS VANDYNEHR 12/ 13/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) Unused Well OS VANDYNEHR 12/ 13/ 2001 ND ( 0.010) duplicate Well OS VANDYNEHR1 1/ 11/ 2002 0.694 Unused Well OS WHITEEE 2/ 20/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Unused Well OS WIGALR 1/ 14/ 2002 NQ (< 0.050) Unused Well OS WIGALR1A 1/ 26/ 2002 0.127 Unused Well OS WIGALCA 4/ 3/ 2002 NQ (< 0.05) Unused Well OS WINTERSJ 12/ 11/ 2001 Misc. Well OS WRIGHTLE 4/ 29/ 2002 0.166 Unused Well DUPONT DR2 1/ 2/ 2002 0.839 Unused Well DUPONT DR3 1/ 2/ 2002 0.68 Unused Well OS ATKINSONJ3 4/ 12/ 2002 0.625 Non drinking water Spring OS CAMPG3 2/ 28/ 2002 0.0998 Water Cattle Spring OS CAMPG2 2/ 28/ 2002 0.081 Water Cattle Spring OS DOWLERE2 1/ 28/ 2002 0.347 Water Cattle Spring OS DOWLERE2 1/ 28/ 2002 0.35 duplicate Spring OS RHODESR 2/ 4/ 2002 0.0748 Misc., Water Cattle Spring OS SEEBAUGHV 2/ 26/ 2002 0.278 Unused Spring OS TENNANTJD 2/ 8/ 2002 0.107 Unused Spring OS CAMPG1 2/ 28/ 2002 0.338 Misc. Cistern OS DALEL 2/ 28/ 2002 0.54 Misc. Cistern OS DAVISA1 2/ 8/ 2002 0.446 Unused Cistern OS DOWLERE1 1/ 28/ 2002 0.307 Misc. Cistern DUPONT DR3A 1/ 28/ 2002 0.175 Unused Cistern OS GRIENERD2 2/ 5/ 2002 0.409 Misc. Cistern OS HOPEWELL 1 1/ 11/ 2002 0.743 Unused Cistern OS MOYERSV 2/ 28/ 2002 0.974 Unused Cistern ND = Not Detected at or above the limit of detection ( LOD).

The listed LOD is approximate and varies by instrument and over time. NQ = Not Quantifiable. Detected at a level above the LOD and below the limit of quantification ( LOQ). All C 8 results are reported in ug/ l. Misc. = Miscellaneous water use is not used for drinking. * Drinking Water ( highlighted in bold blue) indicates human consumption. Non drinking Water uses include livestock watering, gardening and any other non human consumption water uses.

1/ 6/ 2004 10: 00 AM 2 of 2 Tab 6.1 Consent Order Tables 1 ] Table 6.5 Summary of On site and Off site Exposure Pathways Evaluation Dry Run Landfill Lubeck, WV C 8 Impacted Media Pathway Assessment ( Complete or Incomplete) Comparison to Screening Criteria* Pathway Assessment ( Complete or Incomplete) Comparison to Screening Criteria* On Site SWMUs/ Landfilled Materials C  C  Soil C  C  Leachate ( captured & treated) I  I  Surface Water C 87 ug/ l < 150 ug/ l C 87 ug/ l < 150 ug/ l Groundwater I  I

C 8 Impacted Media Pathway Assessment [ Complete ( C) or Incomplete ( I)] Comparison to Screening Criteria* Off Site Drinking Water ( wells, springs and/ or cisterns)  Dry Run C 0.422 ug/ l << 150 ug/ l Non drinking water ( wells, springs and/ or cisterns)  Dry Run C 0.54 ug/ l << 150 ug/ l Unused water sources  Dry Run I  Exposure Pathway Evaluation * Highest value in category is compared to the screening criteria. Screening criteria was established by CATT of 240 mg/ kg for soil, 1360 ug/ l for aquatic life ( surface water), 150 ug/ l for drinking water. For complete exposure pathways, all water samples are compared to the drinking water screening criteria to be conservative. No comparison is made for incomplete exposure pathways. Human Health Exposure Pathways Ecological Exposure Pathways Exposure Pathways for Human and Ecological Receptors 1/ 6/ 2004 1 of 1 Tab 6.5 Consent Order Tables 1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31610]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14403-000]

FFP Project 110, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On May 1, 2012, the FFP Project 110, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Mississippi River
Lock and Dam 25--Project No. 14403, to be located at the
existing Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 25 on the Mississippi
River, near the City of Winfield in Lincoln County, Missouri and
Calhoun County, Illinois. The Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 25 is
owned by the United States government and operated by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Fourteen new 60-foot by
60-foot reinforced concrete powerhouses, each containing two 500-
kilowatt bulb turbine-generators, having a total combined generating
capacity of 14 megawatts; (2) fourteen existing submersible tainter
gates; (3) a new 40-foot by 35-foot substation; (4) a new 10-foot by
60-foot intake structure; (5) a new 3-mile-long, 34.5-kilovolt
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an estimated annual generation of 56 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, 239 Causeway Street,
Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone A. Williams,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and 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. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site 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>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    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-14403) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12868 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule  -  Phase 2 Extension
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2019-0408 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		30 October 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Outreach Meeting (29 October 2019) [DCN 0010]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

EPA convened this meeting with state NPDES program staff to discuss initial concepts for the NPDES eRule Phase 2 Extension Rule. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Carey Johnston (EPA/OECA). Mr. Johnston provides an overview of the three main aspects of the NPDES eRule Phase 2 Extension Rule:

 Phase 2 Compliance Dates
 Alternative Phase 2 Compliance Dates
 Clarifying Edits for More Efficient Implementation & 2019 NPDES Updates Rule Changes

Mr. Johnston also made the following announcements before starting the discussion with state staff.

 This meeting is not a venue for a formal decision-making body. Meeting participants are expected to individually develop, research, and evaluate options for their own consideration.
 There are no formal quorum rules for this meeting. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whomever can participate.
 There will be no formal voting or consensus of meeting participants. Instead, meeting participants are expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their individual various perspectives, not achieve consensus.
 Summaries of the meeting discussions will be documented for the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions and feedback.

Mr. Randy Hill (EPA) thanked Sean Rolland (ACWA) for his help in gathering state NPDES program staff to participate in this meeting. Mr. Johnston also noted that this meeting will not be the only time states can provide input to EPA. This forthcoming proposed rulemaking will be made available to states and the public through a notice and comment rulemaking process.

Phase 2 Compliance Dates

EPA provided an overview of how it plans on changing the Phase 2 dates in the NPDES regulations (Parts 122, 127, 403, and 503). EPA noted that it will propose changing all references to the December 21, 2020, date to December 21, 2023. EPA will also include new language that will reference two new provisions for alternative compliance dates. EPA is changing the dates in Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16 as well as in the implementing NPDES regulations (Parts 122, 403, and 503). The following is an example of how EPA is proposing to change the regulatory text for the Low Erosivity Waiver electronic reporting requirement:

Low Erosivity Waivers - Amend § 122.26(b)(15)(i)(C) to read as follows:
As of December 21, 20230 or an EPA approved alternative date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)) all certifications submitted in compliance with paragraphs (b)(15)(i)(A) and (B) of this section must be submitted electronically by the owner or operator to the Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to part 3), §122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, owners or operators may be required to report electronically if specified by a particular permit or if required to do so by state law.
Ms. Christy Monk (Alabama DEM), Ms. Laurie Fleet (Texas CEQ), and Mr. David Pruitt (Oklahoma DEQ) asked about how EPA will handle the scenario where states are collecting the Phase 2 data but EPA is not ready to receive these data. Mr. Johnston noted that this topic is covered in the second aspect of the NPDES eRule Phase 2 Extension Rule with the proposed alternative compliance date provisions (40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)).

Alternative Phase 2 Compliance Dates

Mr. Johnston outlined the basic concepts of the proposed alternative compliance date provisions. He noted that the proposed language at 40 CFR 127.24(e) would provide a means for states to request more time beyond December 21, 2023 to implement Phase 2 of the NPDES eRule. Mr. Johnston provided an example of how states can use this new provision. Under 40 CFR 127.24(e) a state may submit a request to EPA for an alternative compliance date for electronic reporting of one or more general permit reports, program reports, and related data elements (see Table 2 to appendix A). EPA is proposing to limit each alternative compliance date request to three years. EPA sought comment on the following conditions for this new alternative compliance date provision:

 It is the duty of the authorized NPDES program to re-apply for a new alternative compliance date.
 The alternative compliance date request must:
 be submitted to EPA by the Director, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2;
 identify each general permit, program report, and related data elements covered by the request and the corresponding alternative compliance dates;
 identify each facility covered by the request and the corresponding alternative compliance dates (Mr. Johnston noted that this requirement only will apply if the request covers some but not all facilities within the general permit or program report requirement);
 be submitted 120 days prior to the compliance dates in Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16 or a previously EPA approved alternative compliance date;
 describe how the program will provide notice to NPDES permittees, facilities, or entities covered by the request if EPA approves the request; and
 provide a rationale for the delay and enough details (e.g., tasks, milestones, roles and responsibilities, necessary resources) to clearly describe how the program will successfully implement electronic reporting for general permit, program report, and related data element covered by the request.

Mr. Johnston noted that EPA is proposing to include a requirement in this new alternative compliance date provision for EPA to review each alternative compliance date request and approve or reject the request within 120 days. EPA will also provide notice to the authorized NPDES program. The new alternative compliance date provision also allows the authorized NPDES program to re-apply if the initial request is rejected by EPA.

EPA is also proposing to include in this alternative compliance date provision a requirement for EPA to update its website information on each alternative compliance date request and the corresponding Agency approval or rejection notice. EPA is also proposing to update its website to clearly identify the approved alternative compliance dates for each facility, general permit report, program report, and related data element by authorized NPDES program.

A state representative asked about the scenario where EPA was not able to receive Phase 2 data from states. EPA noted that this scenario is covered in the second alternative compliance date provision (40 CFR 127.24(f)). Mr. Johnston noted that he would discuss this in more detail later in the meeting.

A state representative asked if there would be a way to subscribe to the website to see if there is new information available (e.g., EPA approves a new alternative compliance date in response to a state request). Mr. Hill noted that the mechanism for communicating this information is still being developed but that we would do our best to get the information out to states through multiple channels.

Ms. Courtney Cswercko (Iowa DNR) asked if EPA could provide notice to the state with respect to the state's alternative compliance date request. EPA noted that the alternative compliance date provisions include a requirement for EPA to provide notice to states.

Ms. Cswercko suggested that the alternative compliance date provision for states not include a requirement for states to, "describe how the program will provide notice to NPDES permittees, facilities, or entities covered by the request if EPA approves the request." She noted that this seems unnecessary as states are already coordinating with NPDES-regulated entities for implementing the NDPES eRule. Mr. Rolland (ACWA) noted that this language sounds like a best practice and not a regulatory requirement. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA will consider this request.

A state representative asked if EPA could include a specific URL in the alternative compliance date provisions so that states and NPDES-regulated entities can easily identify all approved alternative start data requests and approved dates. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA will consider this request.

Ms. Monk asked about EPA's rational for limiting the alternative compliance dates to three years per request.
Mr. Johnston noted that three years is a reasonable amount of time to plan and develop electronic reporting tools and data sharing protocols. He also noted that this allows for states to request funds (either through state funding or through EPA's Exchange Network grant program). Finally, Mr. Johnston noted that the Information Collection Request (ICR) accompanying the proposed rule is typically re-authorized on a three-year cycle. The ICR authorizes the burden associated with the new state waiver requests. Limiting each alternative compliance date request to three years will allow EPA to more accurately estimate the burden associated this this new burden.

Ms. Monk asked if EPA's national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) will be re-worked in three years. She doubted that ICIS-NPDES will be ready in three year to receive the eRule Phase 2 data. Mr. Johnston noted that implementing the NPDES eRule and re-working ICIS-NPDES are occuring simultaneously. He noted that the second alternative compliance date provision (40 CFR 127.24(f)) allows EPA to grant states more time if EPA is not ready to receive one or more general permits, program reports, or related Phase 2 data elements.

Ms. Monk noted that it would reduce burden if the new provisions could allow EPA to approve extensions of five years instead of three years. Mr. Hill noted that three years is a reasonable amount of time for states to plan and develop electronic reporting tools. The three-year time frame helps keep implementation moving forward as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Pruitt asked if EPA could take an alternative approach to first finish the necessary updates to ICIS-NPDES and use that completion date as a starting point for Phase 2 implementation. He noted that his state would like ICIS-NPDES to be finished before they start collecting and sharing any eRule Phase 2 data. He prefers this approach as opposed to implementing the Phase 2 data collection and sharing in stages. Other state representatives agreed with the comment from Mr. Pruitt.

Mr. Johnston noted that EPA considered the approach outlined by Mr. Pruitt and decided that the best approach is to push the Phase 2 date out three years and then create new flexibility for states to request and for EPA to approve alternative compliance dates that would give states even more time. Mr. Hill noted that is possible that there could be more than one way in which EPA collects and manages these data. For example, he is planning to develop electronic reporting tools in EPA's software for the program reports over the new three years.

Mr. Strickland (Wisconsin DNR) noted that technology might change within three years. He noted that EPA might go in a different direction in collecting and managing the NPDES data. He noted that states are worries about investing significant sums of money to upgrade their systems to collect and share Phase 2 data and they be required to make updates to reflect any changes in EPA's ICIS-NPDES. Mr. Hill noted that one of EPA's strongest design goals to not have that happen.

Ms. Jaime Bates (Vermont DEC) noted that there are many components to the issue of collecting, sharing, and managing Phase 2 data. She noted that some states use open node and exchange network, which are compatible with EPA's national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES). Ms. Bates want to know if EPA is providing communication to the public on any changes to its ICIS-NPDES. She noted that it can be difficult to inform NPDES-regulated entities how much of ICIS-NPDES is still working as there are a lot of components.

Mr. Johnston noted that he is hearing that states would like EPA to provide more information on any future changes to ICIS-NPDES. Mr. Johnston noted that any future development will build off of the basic concepts in the Clean Water Act and the NPDES program (e.g., facilities, permits, inspections, enforcement). Mr. Hill noted that EPA has a lot of the existing networks in place. We have the Exchange Network ICIS-NPDES Integrated Project Team and several eRule implementation work groups (e.g., EPA-state NNCR work group). He noted that these workgroups are working on these issues around the edges. Mr. Hill stated that he is interested in hearing how EPA can improve its communication on any future changes to ICIS-NPDES.

Ms. Fleet noted that they have a problem now with their prior communication with NDPES permittees. They noted that they have included electronic reporting requirements in NPDES permits and now EPA is proposing to delay the Phase 2 compliance date. She noted that they have, "hodgepodge of provisions for electronic reporting for biosolids." She asked two related questions: (1) How are we supposed to deal with the permits that already have this listed as a permit provision?; and (2) What do we do with the new permits that don't already have the new provision? We're mid-implementation and we need guidance.

On the first question Mr. Hill noted that EPA's NPDES regulations allow for states to make a minor modification of NPDES permits (40 CFR 122.63). This eliminates much of the process associated with modifying a permit. Ms. Fleet noted that Texas state implementing regulations prevent them from using this flexibility provided in EPA's NPDES regulations. Regarding the second question, Mr. Johnston noted that any new citation to the Phase 2 date can include reference to the forthcoming alternative state provisions if it is finalized: "As of December 21, 2023 or an EPA approved alternative date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f))." Mr. Johnston noted that this language can only be used after EPA takes final action of the proposed rulemaking. Mr. Johnston also noted that he is working with TX CEQ staff on their biosolids annual report to evaluate options. Texas has elected to use EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT").

Clarifying Edits for More Efficient Implementation & 2019 NPDES Updates Rule Changes

Mr. Johnston closed out the meeting with an overview of the three aspects of the NPDES Phase 2 Extension rulemaking. He noted that he would go into more details on each proposed change at the next meeting. He shared with meeting participants that some edits are very minor (e.g., correcting CFR titles) and other edits reflect state questions on NPDES eRule implementation and recent changes to the NPDES program and applications. For example, EPA noted that Ms. Monk previously asked if the electronic reporting requirement for Notice of Terminations (NOTs) applies to individual NPDES permits. Mr. Johnston stated that the currently regulatory language could be interpreted to mean that individual NPDES permits must file their NOTs electronically. He noted that one suggested change in the forthcoming NPDES Phase 2 Extension rulemaking would make it clear that this electronic reporting requirement only applies to general permit covered facilities.

Mr. Johnston asked if there were any other comments before he closed out the meeting. Mr. Pruitt asked if it were possible for EPA to start engaging with states on any future updates to ICIS-NPDES. He noted that success that EPA and states had when they developed the data elements for the NPDES eRule and the implementing technical workgroups. He suggested that EPA start a workgroup with states to talk about ICIS-NPDES changes. Mr. Strickland seconded this suggestion. Ms. Courtney Cswercko (Iowa DNR) noted that some ICIS data acceptance protocols make data transfer from state NPDES systems to ICIS-NPDES difficult and sometimes impossible.

Ms. Monk asked if EPA could provide the working document that EPA is using for the proposed rule. Mr. Hill noted that his staff will need to first touch base with other EPA offices.

Participants
 Carey Johnston (EPA)
 Randy Hill (EPA)
 Sean Rolland (ACWA)
 Christy Monk (Alabama)
 Veronica Kenkel (Colorado)
 Courtney Cswercko (Iowa)
 David Pruitt (Oklahoma)
 Laurie Fleet (Texas)
 Jamie Bates (Vermont)
 Wade Trickland (Wisconsin)
 Courtney Tuxbury (EPA)
 Jane Wallace (EPA)
 Jonathan Haynes (Texas)
 Ann Ruthstrom (Texas)
 Stacia Bax (Missouri)
 Tami Dahl (Minnesota)


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27484-27485]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10792]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Giant Resources, Inc., and Rush Exploration,
Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

May 4, 2016.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Giant Resources, Inc. (CIK No. 1327926), an Alberta corporation with
its principal place of business listed as Calgary, Alberta, Canada with
stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol GIREF, because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31,
2012. On August 18, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division
of Corporation Finance to Giant Resources, Inc. requesting compliance
with its periodic filing obligations, and Giant Resources, Inc.
received the delinquency letter on August 31, 2015, but failed to cure
its delinquencies.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Rush Exploration, Inc. (CIK No. 1301574), an Alberta corporation with
its principal place of business listed as Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
with stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol REXEF, because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31,
2012. On August 18, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division
of Corporation Finance to Rush Exploration, Inc. requesting compliance
with its periodic filing obligations, and Rush Exploration, Inc.
received the delinquency letter on August 31, 2015, but failed to cure
its delinquencies.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on May 4, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 17, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10792 Filed 5-4-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P