[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51095-51097]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7851; Special Conditions No. 25-625-SC]

Special Conditions: Associated Air Center, Boeing Model 747-8
Airplane; Installation of an Airbag System To Limit the Axial Rotation
of the Upper Leg on Single-Place Side-Facing Seats

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 747-
8 airplane. This airplane, as modified by Associated Air Center, will
have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-
category airplanes. This design feature is an airbag system to limit
axial rotation of the upper leg, due to leg flail, of occupants in
single-place side-facing seats. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
these design features. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:  This action is effective on Associated Air Center on August 3,
2016. We must receive your comments by September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-7851
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the public comment process with no comments
received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making
these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal
Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On February 15, 2014, Associated Air Center applied for a
supplemental type certificate for inflatable airbag systems in the
Boeing Model 747-8 airplane. This airplane, currently approved under
type certificate no. A20WE, is a private, not-for-hire, not-for-common-
carriage business jet with a head-of-state interior. This airplane has
a maximum passenger seating capacity of 113. Twelve of the passenger-
seating positions include single-place side-facing seats, each of which
include an airbag system to protect against leg-flail injuries.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Associated Air Center must show that the Model 747-8
airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations listed in type certificate no. A20WE, or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 747-8 airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane must comply with the fuel-
vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as modified by Associated Air
Center, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: An airbag system to limit axial rotation of the upper leg,
due to leg flail, of occupants in single-place side-facing seats.

Discussion

    The Boeing Model 747-8 airplane has an interior configuration that
includes single-place side-facing seats. These seats include an airbag
system in the shoulder belt, per Special Conditions no. 25-606-SC; and
an airbag system to limit the axial rotation of the upper leg (femur).
    Side-facing seats are considered a novel design for transport-
category airplanes that include title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 25, Amendment 25-64, in their certification bases and
were not anticipated when those airworthiness standards were issued.
Therefore, the existing regulations do not provide adequate or
appropriate safety standards for occupants of side-facing seats. The
FAA issued Special Conditions no. 25-606-SC to address the
certification of single- and multiple-place side facing seats for
Boeing 747-8 airplanes. Those special conditions include condition
2(e), which requires the axial rotation of the upper-leg (femur) to be
limited to 35 degrees in either direction from the nominal seat
position. Associated Air Center has developed an airbag system that
will be installed close to the floor and that is designed to limit the
axial rotation of the upper-leg.
    Serious leg injuries, such as femur fracture, can occur in aviation
side-facing seats, injuries that could threaten the occupant's life
directly or eliminate the occupant's ability to evacuate the airplane.
Limiting upper-leg axial rotation to a conservative limit of 35 degrees
(approximately the 50-percentile range of motion) should also limit the
risk of serious leg injury. Research suggests that the angle of
rotation can be determined by observing lower-leg flailing in typical
high-speed video of the dynamic tests. Alternately, the anthropomorphic
test dummy could be instrumented to directly measure upper-leg axial
rotation. This requirement complies with the intent of the Sec.
25.562(a) injury criteria in preventing serious leg injury.
    To comply with special condition 2(e) on some seat positions,
Associated Air Center proposes to install leg-flail airbags. This
airbag is not addressed in Special Conditions no. 25-606-SC. Therefore,
the FAA must issue new special conditions to address this leg-flail
airbag installation. These special conditions are similar to other
special conditions previously issued for airbags.
    Special Conditions no. 25-606-SC for the airbag system in the
shoulder belt are based on previous special conditions for airbag
systems on forward-facing seat lap belts with some changes to address
the specific issues of side-facing seats.
    These special conditions for the leg-flail airbag contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 747-8 airplane as modified by Associated Air Center.
Should Associated Air Center apply at a later date for a supplemental
type certificate to modify any other model included on type certificate
no. A20WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for
approval of these features on the airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions previously has been
subjected to the notice and comment period and has been derived without
substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that
prior public comment would result in a significant change from the
substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists
for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal
Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes modified
by Associated Air Center.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785,
and Special Conditions no. 25-606-SC, the following special conditions
are part of the type certification basis for Boeing 747-8 airplanes
with leg-flail airbag systems installed on side-facing seats.
    1. For seats with leg-flail airbag systems, these systems must
deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is
necessary to prevent serious injury. The means of protection must take
into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a
95th-percentile male. At some buttock popliteal length and effective
seat-bottom depth, the lower legs will not be able to form a 90-degree
angle with the upper leg; at this point, the lower-leg flail would not
occur. The leg-flail airbag system must provide a consistent approach
to prevention of leg flail throughout that range of occupants whose
lower legs can form a 90-degree angle relative to the upper legs when
seated upright in the seat. Items that need to be considered include,
but are not limited to, the range of occupants' popliteal height, the
range of occupants' buttock popliteal length, the design of the seat
effective height above the floor, and the effective depth of the seat
bottom cushion.
    2. The leg-flail airbag system must not be susceptible to
inadvertent

deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting
from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings),
and other operating and environmental conditions (vibrations, moisture,
etc.) likely to occur in service.
    3. Deployment of the leg-flail airbag system must not introduce
injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, or result in injuries that
could impede rapid egress.
    4. Inadvertent deployment of the leg-flail airbag system, during
the most critical part of the flight, must either meet the requirement
of Sec.  25.1309(b), or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its
occupants. This also includes preventing inadvertent airbag deployment
from a static discharge.
    5. The leg-flail airbag system must not impede rapid egress of
occupants from the airplane 10 seconds after airbag deployment.
    6. The leg-flail airbag system must be protected from lightning and
high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane
specified in existing regulations regarding lightning (Sec.  25.1316)
and HIRF (Sec.  25.1317) are incorporated by reference for the purpose
of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.
    7. The leg-flail airbag system must function properly after loss of
normal airplane electrical power, and after a transverse separation of
the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the
location of the leg-flail airbag system does not have to be considered.
    8. The leg-flail airbag system must not release hazardous
quantities of gas, sharp injurious metal fragments, or particulate
matter into the cabin.
    9. The leg-flail airbag system installation must be protected from
the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    10. A means must be available to verify the integrity of the leg-
flail airbag system's activation system prior to each flight, or the
leg-flail airbag system's activation system must reliably operate
between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the
leg-flail airbag system's deployment function alone (i.e., independent
of the conditional event that requires the leg-flail airbag system's
deployment) is a major-failure condition.
    11. The airbag inflatable material may not have an average burn
rate of greater than 2.5 inches per minute when tested using the
horizontal flammability test defined in part 25, appendix F, part I,
paragraph (b)(5).
    12. The leg-flail airbag system, once deployed, must not adversely
affect the emergency-lighting system (i.e., block floor-proximity
lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their intended
function).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18398 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 64)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16728-16729]
[DOCID:fr04ap06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 18

[FRL-8053-4]
RIN 2030-AA91

Environmental Protection Research Fellowships and Special
Research Consultants for Environmental Protection

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on the implementation of
the EPA's statutory authority in Title II of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54) that
will allow the EPA to establish fellowships in environmental protection
research, appoint fellows to conduct this research, and appoint special
research consultants to advise on environmental protection research.
Under an administrative provision of Public Law 109-54, the
Administrator may, after consultation with the Office of Personnel
Management, make up to five (5) appointments in any fiscal year from
2006 to 2011 for the Office of Research and Development. Appointees
under this authority shall be employees of the EPA and will engage in
activities related to scientific and engineering research that support
EPA's mission to protect the environment and human health.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register,
we are approving implementation of the EPA's statutory authority (to
establish fellowships in environmental protection research and appoint
fellows to conduct this research and appoint special research
consultants to advise on environmental protection research) in Title II
of the Interior, Environmental and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54) with 42 U.S.C. 209 as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial
revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our
reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If
we receive no adverse comment, no further action on this proposed rule
will be taken. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the
direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by May 4, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

OARM-2006-0249, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Docket Management System (FDMS): http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
     Mail: John O'Brien, Office of Human Resources/Office of
Administration and Resources Management, Mail Code: 3631M, Room 1136-
EPA-East, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Hand Delivery: Office of Environmental Information Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2006-0249. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through FDMS or e-
mail. FDMS is an ``anonymous access'' system. This means that the EPA
will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the EPA without going through FDMS, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. The EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your electronic comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit.
If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Although listed in the index, some information is

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in FDMS or in hard copy at the Office
of Environmental Information Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental
Information Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact John O'Brien at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Human Resources/
Office of Administration and Resources Management, Mail Code 3631M,
Room 1136 EPA-East, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact William Ocampo at (202) 564-

0987 or Robert Stevens at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Research and
Development, Mail Code 8102R, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail
addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns the EPA's authority
under 42 U.S.C. 209 to (1) establish fellowships in environmental
protection research and appoint fellows to conduct this research and
(2) appoint environmental protection special consultants to advise on
environmental protection research. The provisions proposed here are
identical to those contained in the Direct Final Rule located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.
Please refer to the preamble and regulatory text of the direct final
action for further information and the actual text of the revisions.
Additionally, all information regarding Statutory and Executive Orders
for this proposed rule can be found in the Statutory and Executive
Order Review section of the direct final action.

    Dated: March 27, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-3205 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 35343]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER14-2586-002.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 20150612_IPE4-
5_SecondCompliance to be effective 2/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150612-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1430-001.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Reactive Supply and
Voltage Control Amendment Amd to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150612-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1432-001.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Reactive Supply and
Voltage Control Amendment Amd to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150612-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1444-001.
    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Power Coordination Agreement
Concurrence Compliance to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150612-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1446-001.
    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: System Integration Agreement
Concurrence Compliance to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150612-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1912-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Service Agreement Nos. 2526, 2527, 2528, and 2529 to be effective 5/13/
2015.
    Filed Date: 6/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150612-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15102 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 67028]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15232-000]

Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 23, 2021, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo),
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Unaweep Pumped Storage Hydropower Project (Unaweep Project or
project), a closed-loop pumped storage project to be located in Mesa
County, Colorado. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities:
(1) a 96-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill dam with approximate crest
elevation of 8,627 feet (NAVD88) creating a 5,912 acre-foot upper
reservoir with a maximum surface elevation of 8,622 feet (NAVD88); (2)
an approximately 4,900-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter concrete- and steel-
lined underground conduit system to connect the upper and lower
reservoirs to the powerhouse; (3) an underground powerhouse containing
three fixed-speed pump-turbine units with a generation capacity of 267
megawatts each (total capacity of 800 megawatts) that would be directly
coupled to motor-generators rated at approximately 281 megawatts each;
(4) a 73-foot-high earthen fill dam with approximate crest elevation of
7,075 feet (NAVD88), creating a 5,912 acre-foot lower reservoir with a
maximum surface elevation of 7,068 feet (NAVD88); (5) a new water
supply wellfield located adjacent to the Gunnison River near
Whitewater, Colorado and a water transmission system containing a pump
station and an approximately 19-mile-long pipeline; (6) a 24-mile-long
345-kilovolt (kV) single, double-circuit transmission line
interconnecting the project to the applicant's existing Grand Junction
substation which serves an existing 345-kV transmission line; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated average annual generation of the
Unaweep Project would be 2,780 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Terri Eaton, Public Service Company of Colorado,
1800 Larimer Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado 80202; phone: (303)
571-7112; [email protected].
    FERC Contact: Khatoon Melick,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15232-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/elibrary/overview. Enter the docket number (P-15232) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 1, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24236 Filed 11-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Upgrade the refinery wastewater treatment system; and

Reuse refinery effluent as cooling tower makeup water.

The wastewater discharges prior to the expansion included 163 gallons per minute ( gpm) boiler blowdown and 568 gpm treated effluent. Both streams were discharged to surface water. Following the expansion, 259 gpm of treated effluent is discharged to surface water, and 776 gpm of treated effluent is recycled back to the cooling system.

The refinery is located near a major river and a city with a population of approximately 1 million.

Golden Bear Refinery ( Oildale, CA) Reference: USFilter. Case History, Refinery Wastewater Reuse: The Golden Bear Refinery Experience. Rothschild, WI. 2001.

In 1999, USFilter's Zimpro Products ( Rothschild, WI) installed a wastewater treatment system at the Golden Bear Refinery ( Oildale, CA), enabling the refinery to reuse treated effluent water in its boiler and cooling tower systems. The refinery generates about 130 gallons of wastewater per minute and reuses approximately 70 percent.

The treatment system includes a reverse osmosis ( RO) pretreatment system, powdered activated carbon ( PACT ® ) biological system, sand filter ( Hydro Clear ® ) , and two stage RO system. USFilter chose the PACT biological system based on economics, system's ability to Page 47 of 49 handle variable organic loads, treatment stability, minimization of volatile organic compounds ( VOC)/ odor stripping, and minimal solids generation.

The Golden Bear Refinery produces high quality lubricants and paving asphalt.

USFilter Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Sunoco Refinery ( Toledo, OH) Reference: USFilter. Case Study: Sunoco, Lower Costs, Stronger Balance Sheet Drive Refinery Agreement.

In 1998, USFilter purchased the wastewater treatment plant located at the Sunoco refinery in Toledo, OH. USFilter operates the system and treats the wastewater from the refinery.

USFilter improved operation of the wastewater treatment plant by using a computerized preventive maintenance program and process control. These systems control maintenance schedule, detect issues, and handle influent variations at the treatment system. One million dollars worth of capital improvements and maintenance were installed. The system recycles 3.25 million gallons per day of treated effluent back to the refinery's cooling system and discharges 2.0 million gallons per day to a POTW.

All the raw wastewater is treated by screens, API separators, dissolved nitrogen flotation, aeration, and clarification. Effluent for use at the cooling towers is treated further by sand filters to reduce pollutants further.

The Toledo refinery can process 140,000 barrels per day of crude oil, forming products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, solvents, propane, and residual fuels.

Rompetrol Refinery Complex Petromidia ( Navodari, Romania) Reference: Rompetrol Refinery Complex Petromidia. Improving Water Management at a Refinery Complex in Romania. Navodari, Romania. April 2001  January 2002. http:// www. rec. org/ ecolinks/ bestpractices/ PDF/ romania_ rompetrol. pdf The Petromidia Refinery Complex, located in Romania, was built in 1975. The Complex refinery has a capacity to process 4.8 million tons of crude oil per year into leaded and unleaded gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oil, coke, various aromatics, propane, butane, and sulfur. Currently, the plant processes between 3 and 3.5 million tons of crude oil per year.

The Complex pumps process water from the Danube Black Sea Cana ( Carasu) approximately 20 kilometers away. The water supply pumps are oversized, pumping at a rate of approximately 1,700 cubic meters per hour, exceeding site requirements by up to 800 cubic meters per hour. Firewater is pumped from Lake Tasaul and used without treatment ( sometimes for certain process applications as well).

With the support of an EcoLinks Challenge Grant, the Complex evaluated current water management at the refinery and developed an improved water management plan ( the Implementation Plan) to:

Reduce environmental compliance costs;

Optimize energy consumption and equipment efficiency; and Page 48 of 49

Reduce wastewater discharges.

The project team evaluated the following items: water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, cooling towers, boilers, petrochemical process water, refinery process wastewater, ground water, and stormwater. This evaluation occurred from April 2001 to January 2002 and cost a total of $ 72,078.

The components of the Implementation Plan are highlighted in the table below ( reproduced from the reference). The report, Improving Water Management at a Refinery Complex in Romania, provides a summary of all options considered.

Petromidia Refinery Complex Implementation Plan Alternatives Saved Energy KWh/ month Investment US $ Savings Simple Payback Years Install smaller pumps in separators, storm water and ground water pump stations 32,800 56,000 16,900 US $/ year 2.53 Install flow meters NA 270,000 75,000 US $/ year 3.6 Install level indicators in grease separators NA 205,000 Wastewater quality improvement Not available yet Repair oil skimmers in separators NA 1,800 Reduced petroleum discharge into WWTP Not available yet Install smaller raw water pumps 230, 580 141,000 to 181,000 14,490 to 16,537 US $/ month 9.75 to 11 months Rehabilitation of cooling towers NA 3,865,904 Not available yet Not available yet Replace existing cooling towers with smaller units Not assessed yet 4,850,000 1,200,000 US $/ year 4 Re use of Marox caustic waste for sulfides and mercaptans More power need for pumps ( increased from 22 to 25 kW / motor) 2,750 857.6 US $/ month 3.21 months Boiler blowdown used for process purposes 1,552,778 Not assessed yet 28,060 US $/ month Not assessed yet Wastewater used as fire water 64,800 22,180 13,450 US $/ month 1.65 months The Implementation Plan focuses on using less energy and raw water, and generating less wastewater. Using the Implementation Plan, the Complex can lower energy use by approximately 1.8 million kWh per month and a total annual savings of $ 1.9 million using all the alternatives developed. Page 49 of 49 Wastewater discharge was reduced from 1,000 1,100 cubic meters per hour to 600 750 cubic meters per hour. The reduction in wastewater discharge results in a savings of $ 258,000 per year.


NOTE

Subject:	Discussions with stakeholders regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking for the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program

From:	Sean Hillson

	Transportation and Regional Programs Division

To:	EPA Air docket EPA-OAR-2005-0161

This log summarizes conversations I have had with stakeholders regarding the NPRM that was signed by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on September 7, 2006.  Any written data, reports, or other information that was provided through or as a result of these conversations is attached.

Date	Person/group	Topic discussed

1/11/2007	Maria Tome

Hawaii State Energy Office	Date at which noncontiguous states can opt-in to RFS program


[Federal Register: March 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 12348]
[DOCID:fr10mr06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-55-000]

Atlantic City Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company,
Potomac Electric Power Company, Complainant v. PJM Interconnection,
LLC, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

March 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 2, 2006, Atlantic City Electric Company,
Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Potomac Electric Power Company (the
PHI Companies), pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 824e and section 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures, 18 CFR 385.206, filed a complaint against PJM
Interconnection, LLC (PJM) alleging that, in contravention of PJM's
Operating Agreement and Commission orders and policy, PJM has failed to
implement the marginal losses component of locational marginal pricing,
thereby foregoing significant overall market efficiencies in the PJM
energy market as a whole, and causing unjust, unreasonable and unduly
discriminatory market prices which substantially harm the PHI
Companies.
    The PHI Companies certify that a copy of the complaint has been
served on PJM.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time, March 22, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3447 Filed 3-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 1252]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-316-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Facilities Policy to be
effective 2/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180103-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-317-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate PAL
Agreement--Koch Energy Serv. LLC to be effective 1/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180103-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-318-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Correct Contracted Quantity to
be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180103-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/16/18.

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

    Dated: January 4, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00279 Filed 1-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6314-6316]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0601; FRL-8812-3]

Inert Ingredients; Extension of Effective Date of Revocation of
Certain Tolerance Exemptions with Insufficient Data for Reassessment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document moves the effective date of the revocation of
six inert ingredient tolerance exemptions as set forth in the Federal
Register on October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52148).

DATES: In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45415), and
delayed on August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45312), August 7, 2009 (74 FR 39543),
and October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52148):
    1. The effective date is delayed from February 9, 2010, to May 9,
2010, for the following amendments to Sec. 180.910: 2.m., n., and cc.
    2. The effective date is delayed from February 9, 2010, to May 9,
2010, for the following amendments to Sec. 180.930: 4.t., u., and v.
    Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before
April 12, 2010, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0601. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0601 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before April 12, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0601, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

A. Background

    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2006
(71 FR 45415)(FRL-8084-1), EPA revoked inert ingredient tolerance
exemptions because insufficient data were available to the Agency to
make the safety determination required by Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(c)(2). In reassessing the safety of
the tolerance exemptions, EPA considered the validity, completeness,
and reliability of the data that are available to the Agency [FFDCA
section 408 (b)(2)(D)] and the available information concerning the
special susceptibility of infants and children (including developmental
effects from in utero exposure) [FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C)]. EPA
concluded it has insufficient data to make the safety finding of FFDCA
section 408(c)(2) and revoked the inert ingredient tolerance

exemptions identified in the final rule under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.920,
180.930, and 180.940, with the revocations effective on August 9, 2008.
     In a direct final rule published in the Federal Register on August
4, 2008 (73 FR 45312)(FRL-8372-7), EPA moved the effective date of the
revocation of certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions from August
9, 2008, until August 9, 2009. This determination was made based on
requests for an extension of the revocation date from pesticide
registrants and inert ingredient manufacturers who had demonstrated
their intent to support certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions
and who had provided data development plans and schedules for data
submission to the Agency. In a subsequent direct final rule published
in the Federal Register on August 7, 2009 (74 FR 39543)(FRL-8431-8),
EPA moved the effective date of the revocation of six inert ingredient
tolerance exemptions from August 9, 2009, until October 9, 2009. This
action was based on the fact that EPA had received petitions for the
establishment of tolerance exemptions which included the submission of
data for these inert ingredients. Notices of filing of these petitions
(PP 8E7466 and PP 8E7478) were published in the Federal Register on
March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12856)(FRL-8399-4). The August 7, 2009, direct
final rule was published to allow for the completion of the Agency's
risk assessments needed to evaluate the petitions and to complete the
safety determinations for the six tolerance exemptions. The October 9,
2009 (74 FR 52148)(FRL-8794-1), direct final rule was published to move
the effective date of the revocation of six inert ingredient tolerance
exemptions from October 9, 2009 to February 9, 2010 to allow for the
review and evaluation of significant additional toxicity, metabolism
and environmental fate data submitted by the petitioners in further
support of pesticide tolerance petitions 8E7466 and 8E7478.

 B. Moving the Effective Date of the Revocation for Six Tolerance
Exemptions

     Following the publication of the October 9, 2009, final rule
delaying the effective date for the six revoked tolerance exemptions,
EPA did its own search of the public literature and found new
information that the Agency determined would have significant bearing
on its safety evaluation under FFDCA section 408(c)(2) of the petitions
(8E7466 and 8E7478) which are proposing that these exemptions be
reestablished. EPA, therefore, concludes that additional time is
necessary to complete the safety determinations for these six tolerance
exemptions in order to allow time to review and evaluate this new
information and that the effective date of the revocation of these
tolerance exemptions should be moved by three months to May 9, 2010.

 C. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

     A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by FQPA, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of
tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in
tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods.
Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is
considered to be unsafe and therefore ``adulterated'' under FFDCA
section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in
interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be
sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate
tolerances under FFDCA, but also must be registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)(7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must
have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides
to be imported into the United States. Under FFDCA section
408(e)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B), EPA may take action
establishing, modifying, suspending, or revoking a tolerance exemption.

III. Delayed Effective Date for Certain Tolerance Exemptions

    The amendatory designations listed in this unit are reprinted from
the final rule published in the Federal Register issue of October 9,
2009 (74 FR 52148) for the convenience of the user. The structure
mirrors the amendatory designations in the original document. The
amendatory designations shown are those with the effective date delayed
until May 9, 2010.

Section 180.910

     m. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and
the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the nonyl
group is a propylene trimer isomer and the poly (oxyethylene) content
averages 4-14 moles or 30 moles.
     n. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)sulfate, ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts; the nonyl group is a propylene
trimer isomer and the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4 moles.
     cc. [alpha]-[p-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenyl]-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) produced by the condensation of 1 mole of p-
(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol with a range of 1-14 or 30-70 moles of
ethylene oxide: if a blend of products is used, the average range
number of moles of ethylene oxide reacted to produce any product that
is a component of the blend shall be in the range of 1-14 or 30-70.

Section 180.930

    t. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture
of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the
corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the nonyl
group is a propylene trimer isomer and the poly(oxyethylene) content
averages 4-14 moles.
    u. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)sulfate,
and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc
salts; the nonyl group is a propylene trimer isomer and the
poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4 moles.
    v. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)sulfate,
and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium,
sodium, and zinc salts; the nonyl group is a propylene trimer isomer
and the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4-14 or 30-90 moles of
ethylene oxide.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to petitions submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

Sec. 180.910  [AMENDED]

0
2. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45415), and
delayed on August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45312), August 7, 2009 (74 FR 39543)
and October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52148) the effective date is delayed from
February 9, 2010, to May 9, 2010, for the following amendments to
Sec. 180.910: 2.m., n., and cc.

Sec. 180.930  [AMENDED]

0
3. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45415), and
delayed on August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45312), August 7, 2009 (74 FR 39543)
and October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52148) the effective date is delayed from
February 9, 2010, to May 9, 2010, for the following amendments to
Sec. 180.930: 4.t., u., and v.

[FR Doc. 2010-2801 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53691-53692]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23209]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Order Granting a Conditional Exemption Under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 from the Confirmation Requirements of Exchange
Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain Transactions in Money Market Funds,
SEC File No. 270-792; OMB Control No. 3235-0739

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval: Order Granting a Conditional
Exemption under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from the
Confirmation Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain
Transactions in Money Market Funds (17 CFR 240.10b-10(a)).
    Rule 10b-10 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) generally requires broker-dealers to provide customers
with specified information relating to their securities transactions at
or before the completion of the transactions. Rule 10b-10(b), however,
provides an exception from this requirement for certain transactions in
money market funds that attempt to maintain a stable net asset value
when no sales load or redemption fee is charged. The exception permits
broker-dealers to provide transaction information to money market fund
shareholders on a monthly, rather than immediate, basis, subject to the
conditions. Amendments to Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``Investment Company Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) among other
things, means, absent an exemption, broker-dealers would not be able to
continue to rely on the exception under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(b) for
transactions in money market funds operating in accordance with Rule
2a-7(c)(1)(ii).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally Money Market Fund Reform; Amendments to Form
PF, Securities Act Release No. 9408, Investment Advisers Act Release
No. 3616, Investment Company Act Release No. 30551 (June 5, 2013),
78 FR 36834, 36934 (June 19, 2013); see also Exchange Act Rule 10b-
10(b)(1), 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b)(1) (limiting alternative monthly
reporting to money market funds that attempt to maintain a stable
NAV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, the Commission issued an Order Granting a Conditional
Exemption under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From The
Confirmation Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) For Certain
Transactions In Money Market Funds (``Order'') \2\ which allows broker-
dealers, subject to certain conditions, to provide transaction
information to investors in any money market fund operating pursuant to
Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) on a monthly basis in lieu of providing immediate
confirmations as required under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) (``the
Exemption''). Accordingly, to be eligible for the Exemption, a broker-
dealer must (1) provide an initial written notification to the customer
of its ability to request delivery of immediate confirmations
consistent with the written notification requirements of Exchange Act
Rule 10b-10(a), and (2) not receive any such request to receive
immediate confirms from the customer. As of March 31, 2018, the
Commission estimates there are approximately 162 broker-dealers that
clear customer transactions or carry customer funds and securities who
would be responsible for providing customer confirmations. The
Commission estimates that the cost of the ongoing notification
requirements would be minimal, approximately 5% of the initial burden
which was previously estimated to be 36 hours per broker-dealer, or
approximately 1.8 hours per broker-dealer per year to provide ongoing
notifications or a total burden of 292 hours annually for the 162
carrying broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Order Granting a Conditional Exemption Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From the Confirmation Requirements
of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain Transactions in Money
Market Funds, Exchange Act Release No. 34-76480 (Nov. 19, 2015), 80
FR 73849 (Nov. 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in

writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 19, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23209 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association Meeting with Water Permits Division August 3, 2004 Attendees Deborah Nagle, Water Permits Division, OWM Jan Pickrel, Water Permits Division, OWM Greg Schaner, Water Permits Division, OWM Elaine Brenner, Water Permits Division, OWM Linda Boornazian, Water Permits Division, OWM Pat Nevrincean, FMC Joyce McCarty, Attorney for SOCMA Jeff Gunnulfsen, SOCMA Bill Turetsky, ISP Martha Murroy, AeroJet Beth Levine, Cambrex Purpose and Summary of Meeting SOCMA met with Water Permits Division to outline what it views to be the primary issues in the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. The following summarizes the discussion:

  pH   SOCMA supports AMSA's comments in favor of establish an alternative approach to handling discharges of pH between 4.0 and 5.0. EPA should not limits this provision to facilities which have continuous pH monitors. Supports use of exemptions established in the NPDES program for low pH under § 401.17. SOCMA further indicated that the POTW has the ability to reject discharges, and that they should know when corrosion presents a problem.

  Equivalent Mass Limits   SOCMA members favor the proposed rule because it would provide more clarity in this area. They have found that permitting authorities are reluctant to allow mass limits because of the lack of guidance. Mass limits generally provide a better understanding of the loadings, while concentration does not represent the overall discharge. In addition, SOCMA argued that concentration limits conflict with the general goal of water conservation because they encourage dilution. SOCMA indicated that flow measurement was a reasonable requirement to establish the appropriate limit. If a facility cannot afford a flow monitor, then they would not be able to pursue mass limits.

  Pollutants Not Present   OCPSF facilities, which were left out of the pollutants not present provision, should be included in the final rule. SOCMA has 14 years of data indicating that this waiver can work with the industry. SOCMA indicated that the certification statement requirement should provide the necessary comfort level for the POTW that the facility does not have the particular pollutant.

  Removal Credits   SOCMA is not arguing that removal credits be addressed in this rulemaking. However, they would like to see removal credits be a more functional part of the program.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 76318]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13948-002]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County; Notice of
Draft Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed 6-
megawatt Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project, which would be located
on Calligan Creek in King County, Washington, and has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project would not
occupy any federal lands.
    The EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of construction and operation of the project and concludes that
licensing the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would
not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect
the quality of the human environment. Based on a review of the comments
received in response to the issuance of this EA, the Commission may
issue a final EA.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may 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 field to
access documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp.
    You must include your name and contact information at the end of
your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In
lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
13948-002.
    For further information, contact Kelly Wolcott at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29874 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM January 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Endangered Species addendum to EFED's Disulfoton Science Chapter FROM: Henry Craven, Biologist EFED Thomas Steeger, Acting Branch Chief ERB 3, EFED Larry Turner, Mammalogist FEAD Arty Williams, Branch Chief EFB, FEAD TO: Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager SRRD This memo reflects EFED's consultation with FEAD and presents the results of a preliminary assessment for potential risk to endangered birds and mammals from disulfoton's use in the following situations:

Asparagus foliar application of liquid in CA and WA Barley  foliar application of liquid in CO, ID, MT and WA Christmas trees  spot broadcast of granular in NC Coffee  spot broadcast of granular in Puerto Rico Cotton  in furrow application of granular and liquid in LA, MO, OK, NC and SC Potatoes  foliar application of liquid in ID and WA Wheat  foliar application of liquid in KY Appended to this memo are two print outs from OPPs Endangered Species data base that compares USDA's Agriculture Census information on crop and county overlap with USFWS information on the location of endangered species to the county level. One print out applies to Christmas trees in N Carolina and the second is for the other crops (except coffee) and states. Since the data base does not include information on Puerto Rico, Larry Turner had personal communication with Felix Lopez, Environmental Contaminants Specialist USFWS, Tel #. 787 851 7297 (ext. 26). The results of a cursory screen of the two print outs and the phone call are as follows:

Two species were identified as possibly needing some form of mitigation. These species are the Puerto Rican plain pigeon in coffee plantations and the Mountain plover in barley fields.

Puerto Rico has no endangered mammals, however two endangered ground feeding birds, i. e. Yellow shouldered blackbird and Puerto Rican plain pigeon, could consume granules as grit. Only the Puerto Rican plain pigeon utilizes coffee plantations. Puerto Rico is divided up politically into 72 municipalities. The Puerto Rican plain pigeon resides in 5 municipalities of which 4, i. e. Cayey, Cidra, Comerio, Utuado, contain coffee plantations. Utuado has ~7500 acres of coffee, which is about 1/ 4th the area of the municipality; the other three have less than 100 acres each. Mitigation could be assured by off labeling for the 4 municipalities.

There was no county overlap between asparagus in Washington and California and endangered species.

With respect to disulfoton use on barley, only the Mountain plover is at potential risk from ingesting soil invertebrates in soil that has been sprayed directly or received wash off from the foliage. However, residues would likely be lower than what would be required to cause an adverse effect. The overlap between the number of counties where barley is grown and the bird may occur includes 14 in Colorado and 17 in Montana. Additionally, like other plovers, the bird prefers unvegetated, open areas; if the barley is taller than 3 inches before it is sprayed there is little likelihood the bird would utilize the field. Therefore, a label statement limiting application of disulfoton to when the crop is at least 3 inches tall could provide a reasonable measure of mitigation of risk from disulfoton exposure. Finally, the species has been proposed, but is not officially listed as endangered. Regardless of the status, OPP needs to be aware of the potential for exposure.

Although carnivorous birds (ie. owls and eagles) and mammals (ie. Black footed ferret, grizzly, Gray wolf and Red Wolf) were located in the same counties as all crops except coffee, they are not at risk because secondary poisoning studies on representatives from these two classes did not indicate concern.

Several crops such as cotton, wheat and Christmas trees were located in the same counties as endangered bats. However bats are not at risk from disulfoton sprays as they would only be feeding on flying insects from dusk to dawn. If spraying is restricted to daylight hours, bats would not be exposed to disulfoton. Bats would not be exposed to granules.

With respect to Christmas trees in North Carolina, in addition to some of the organisms stated above there are several birds and mammals which although they could be in or around the vicinity of Christmas tree plantations are not considered at risk especially from use of granules. The Wood Stork feeds on fish and the Piping plover resides on sand bars and feeds on aquatic invertebrates; therefore neither of these species are likely to be impacted. Because disulfoton is systemic, there is a slight potential for low, undetermined dietary exposure to the Northern flying squirrel and the Red cockaded woodpecker. The squirrel consumes organisms, i. e. lichens, fungi and insects, or plant parts, i. e. buds and seeds that could take up disulfoton residues from the xylem. However as the squirrel is a cavity nester it prefers tall deciduous trees to conifers in the same proximity. The woodpecker requires old growth (at least 60 years) living pine trees in which to make cavities; they feed on insects found under the bark of conifers where the trunk is larger and more accessible than in young Christmas trees.

Concerning uses other than Christmas trees and coffee the following endangered species are forest dwellers and are not associated with agricultural sites: Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel, Marbled murrelet (feeds on fish), Woodland caribou, Brown Pelican (feeds on fish), Red cockaded woodpecker, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Preble's meadow jumping mouse (resides in high elevation meadows). These species would not be considered at risk. In addition to the forest dwellers, Wood storks feed on fish, Whooping cranes feed on aquatic invertebrates, Black capped vireos reside in scrub areas and feed on flying insects, Piping Plovers reside principally on sand bars and feed on aquatic invertebrates, and Idaho ground squirrels inhabit meadows. These species would not be considered at risk.

Considering the biology of the species mentioned above and the specific recommendations to avoid exposure of disulfoton to the Puerto Rican plain pigeon and the Mountain plover, we believe there will be no effect on threatened and endangered species.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1624-1625]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00489]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF16-2-000]

Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 18, 2015, Southwestern Power
Administration submitted a tariff filing: 2015 SRD Rate Schedule Filing
to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's

eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list.
They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference
Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site
that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document
is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 19, 2016.

    Dated: January 7, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00489 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P