[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25678-25681]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0089]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Stuart Sailfish Regatta, Indian River;
Stuart, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the Indian River located northeast of Ernest F. Lyons Bridge and south
of Joes Cove, in Stuart, Florida during the Stuart Sailfish Regatta, a
series of high-speed boat races. The Stuart Sailfish Regatta will take
place from May 16 through May 18, 2014. Approximately 120 high-speed
power boats will be participating in the event. It is anticipated that
at least 100 spectator vessels will be present during the event. This
special local regulation is necessary for the safety of race
participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
during the event. The special local regulation will establish the
following three areas: A race area, where all persons and vessels,
except those participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within; a
buffer zone around the race area, where all persons and vessels, except
those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized
participants or vessels transiting to the race area, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within;
and a spectator area, where all persons are prohibited from entering
the water or swimming in the designated area.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 16, 2014
through May 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer John K. Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 21, 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
Special Local Regulation; Stuart Sailfish Regatta, Indian River;
Stuart, FL in the Federal Register (77 FR 79 FR 15715). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest, because immediate
action is necessary to protect the safety of the participants from the
dangers associated with other vessels transiting this area while the
race occurs.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to

provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United
States during the Stuart Sailfish Regatta.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    From May 16 through May 18, 2014, Stuart Sailfish Regatta Inc. will
be hosting the Stuart Sailfish Regatta, a series of high-speed boat
races. The races will be held on the Indian River located northeast of
Ernest F. Lyons Bridge and south of Joes Cove, in Stuart, Florida.
Approximately 120 high-speed power boats will be participating in the
event. It is anticipated that at least 100 spectator vessels will be
present during the event.
    The special local regulation will encompass certain navigable
waters of the Indian River located northeast of Ernest F. Lyons Bridge
and south of Joes Cove, in Stuart, Florida. The special local
regulation will be enforced daily from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. from May 16
through May 18, 2014. The special local regulation will consist of the
following three areas: (1) A race area, where all persons and vessels,
except those participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within;
(2) a buffer zone around the race area, where all persons and vessels,
except those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, or
authorized participants or vessels transiting to the race area, are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within; and (3) a spectator area, where all persons are
prohibited from entering the water or swimming in the designated area.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter the special
local regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF radio
on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the special local regulated area is granted by the
Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or the designated
representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) This
special local regulation will be enforced for nine hours a day for
three days; (2) non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during their
respective enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port
Miami or a designated representative; (3) non-participant persons and
vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated areas without authorization from the Captain of the Port
Miami or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding
areas during the respective enforcement periods; and (4) the Coast
Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation
to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of
the regulated area during the respective enforcement periods. For the
reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard
previously completed an environmental assessment for this event and
regulation in 2012, as well as conducted a supplemental environmental
assessment in 2013. The event and regulation for the 2012 and 2013
occurrences are similar in all aspects to this year's event and
regulation; therefore the same environmental assessment and
supplemental environmental assessment are being referenced for this
year's event and regulation. The environmental assessment is available
in the docket folder for USCG-2012-0150, and the supplemental
environmental assessment is available in the docket folder USCG-2012-
0150 at www.regulations.gov. This rule involves establishing a special
local regulation that will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. daily
May 16 through 18 2014. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-0089 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0089  Special Local Regulation; Stuart Sailfish
Regatta, Indian River, Stuart, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated area is established as
a special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race Area. All waters of Indian River located northeast of
Ernest Lyons Bridge and south of Joes Cove that are encompassed within
the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 27[deg]12'46'' N,
80[deg]11'09'' W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position
27[deg]12'41'' N, 80[deg]11'08'' W; thence southwest to Point 3 in
position 27[deg]12'37'' N, 80[deg]11'11'' W; thence southwest to Point
4 in position 27[deg]12'33'' N, 80[deg]11'18'' W; thence southwest to
Point 5 in position 27[deg]12'31'' N, 80[deg]11'23'' W; thence west to
Point 6 in position 27[deg]12'31'' N, 80[deg]11'27'' W; thence
northwest to Point 7 in position 27[deg]12'33'' N, 80[deg]11'31'' W;
thence northwest to Point 8 in position 27[deg]12'38'' N,
80[deg]11'32'' W; thence northeast to Point 9 in position
27[deg]12'42'' N, 80[deg]11'30'' W; thence northeast to Point 10 in
position 27[deg]12'46'' N, 80[deg]11'26'' W; thence northeast to Point
11 in position 27[deg]12'48'' N, 80[deg]11'20'' W; thence east to Point
12 in position 27[deg]12'48'' N, 80[deg]11'15'' W; thence southeast
back to origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons and
vessels participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
race area.
    (2) Buffer Zone. All waters of Indian River located northeast of
Ernest Lyons Bridge and south of Joes Cove that are encompassed within
the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 27[deg]12'47'' N,
80[deg]11'43'' W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position
27[deg]12'22'' N, 80[deg]11'28'' W; thence northeast to Point 3 in
position 27[deg]12'35'' N, 80[deg]11'00'' W; thence northwest to Point
4 in position 27[deg]12'47'' N, 80[deg]11'04'' W; thence northeast to
Point 5 in position 27[deg]13'05'' N, 80[deg]11'01'' W; thence
southeast back to origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons
and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized participants or
vessels transiting to the race area, are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the buffer zone.
    (3) Spectator Area. All waters of Indian River located northeast of
Ernest Lyons Bridge and south of Joes Cove that are encompassed within
the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 27[deg]12'48'' N,
80[deg]11'43'' W; thence northeast to Point 2 in position
27[deg]12'55'' N, 80[deg]11'26'' W; thence southeast to Point 3 in
position 27[deg]12'52'' N, 80[deg]11'24'' W; thence southwest to Point
4 in position 27[deg]12'40'' N, 80[deg]11'39'' W; thence northwest back
to origin. All persons are prohibited from entering the water or
swimming in the spectator area.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
race area and/or buffer zone of the special local regulated area unless
authorized by Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
All persons are prohibited from entering the water or swimming in the
spectator area. Non-participant persons and vessels may

request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the race area and/or buffer zone of the special local regulated
area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-
535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local
regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,
and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule will be enforced daily from 8 a.m.
until 5 p.m. from May 16, 2014 through May 18, 2014.

    Dated: April 25, 2014.
A.J. Gould,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2014-10271 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68591-68592]
[DOCID:fr27no06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-18-025]

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Negotiated
Rates

November 17, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 13, 2006, Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 6I and Original
Sheet No. 6J, to be effective on November 10, 2006.
    Iroquois states that these sheets reflect a negotiated rate
agreement between Iroquois and Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc.,
with those negotiated rates to be effective November 10, 2006 through
April 1, 2007.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19938 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77560]
[DOCID:fr19de08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM08-16-000; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]

Electric Reliability Organization Interpretations of Specific
Requirements of Frequency Response and Bias and Voltage and Reactive
Control Reliability Standards

December 15, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of time for filing
comments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 20, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to accept North American Electric
Reliability Corporation's (NERC) interpretation of certain specific
requirements of one Commission-approved Reliability Standard, BAL-003-
0, Frequency Response and Bias; and to remand NERC's proposed
interpretation of VAR-001-1, Voltage and Reactive Control, for
reconsideration. (73 FR 71971). This document extends the time for
filing comments in response to the Commission's NOPR.

DATES: Effective Date: The date for comments on the NOPR in this
proceeding is extended to January 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard M. Wartchow (Legal
Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Extension of Time

    On November 20, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) in the above-referenced proceeding. The document was
published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2008.\1\ The NOPR
requested comments to be submitted 30 days following publication in the
Federal Register, which date would fall on December 29, 2008.\2\ To
provide interested persons additional time to consider the technical
issues raised in the NOPR, and in light of the press of other business,
including the intervening holiday period, the Commission, acting sua
sponte, hereby extends the time to prepare and file comments on the
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electric Reliability Organization Interpretations of
Specific Requirements of Frequency Response and Bias and Voltage and
Reactive Control Reliability Standards, NOPR, Docket No. RM08-16-
000, 73 FR 71971 (Nov. 26, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,204 (2008).
    \2\ Accounting for the effect of the Executive Order, Closing of
Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on
Friday, December 26, 2008 (Dec. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of
time for filing comments in response to the NOPR is granted until and
including January 7, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-30235 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 19719-19720]
[DOCID:fr17ap06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-298-000]

Public Service Commission of New York, Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission, and Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate,
Complainants v. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Respondent;
Notice of Complaint

April 10, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 7, 2006, the Public Service Commission of
New York, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and the
Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (collectively, Joint State
Agencies) filed a complaint against National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (NFG), pursuant to sections 5(a) and 13 of the Natural Gas
Act, 15 U.S.C. 717(a) and 7171, and Rule 206 of Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, alleging that NFG's existing rates are unjust
and unreasonable and asking the Commission to determine and set the
just and reasonable rates NFG shall be authorized to charge
prospectively.
    The Joint State Agencies certify that copies of the complaint were
served on contacts for NFG, affected regulatory agencies and other
parties that Joint State Agencies know may be affected.
    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. Such notices, motions, or protests must be
filed on or before the comment date. 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 on April 27, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5614 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3508-3509]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Gillespie County Airport, Fredericksburg, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Gillespie County Airport under the provisions of
section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address:
    Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Roger Hansen, Airport Manager, at the
following address:
    101 West Main St., Unit 9, Fredericksburg, Texas 78624.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Cooks, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax: (817)
222-5989.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request

to release property at the Gillespie County Airport under the
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Fredericksburg owns 7.73 acre tract of land that
adjoins airport property. The airport has 5.77 acre tract of land that
adjoins a City partk. The County and the City propose to exchange these
two tracts as being advantageous to both. The land was acquired by the
County of Gillespie in 1946 using public funds derived through a bond
issue voted in 1945. The property to be released will be traded to
allow both entities future development. Any person may inspect the
reqeust in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Gillespie County Airport, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on January 9, 2008.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 08-168 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44684-44685]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

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

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2016.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2016.
Ryan Paquet,
Director, Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Regulation(s)     Nature of the special
    Application No.             Docket No.             Applicant           affected           permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              SPECIAL PERMITS DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12102-M................  .......................  VEOLIA ES           173.56(b) and       To modify the special
                                                   TECHNICAL           173.56(i).          permit to authorize
                                                   SOLUTIONS LLC.                          an additional
                                                                                Division 4.1 material
                                                                                to be transported
                                                                                using the special
                                                                                permit.

15552-M................  .......................  POLY-COAT SYSTEMS,  173.241, 173.242,   To modify the special
                                                   INC.                173.242, 173.243,   permit to authorize
                                                                       107.503(B), and     an alternate test
                                                                       107.503(C).         method for
                                                                                determining chemical
                                                                                compatibility for FRP
                                                                                cylinders.
15839-M................  .......................  SENSORS, INC......  172.301(c) and      To modify the special
                                                                       177.834(h).         permit to authorize
                                                                                an additional
                                                                                cylinder carrying
                                                                                case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-16063 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38711-38712]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1273]

Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs Intended for
Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs Intended for
Treatment.'' This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry
for designing a nonclinical development program to support approval of
drugs to treat osteoporosis. This guidance also discusses the
nonclinical development of biopharmaceuticals (e.g., recombinant
proteins and monoclonal antibodies).

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by August 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-1273 for ``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs
Intended for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential

Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gemma Kuijpers, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5374, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs Intended for
Treatment.'' This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry
for designing a nonclinical development program to support approval of
drugs to treat osteoporosis. In addition to the pharmacology and
toxicology studies required to support development of a new drug or
biologic, long-term nonclinical studies to evaluate effects on bone
quality in adequate animal models and including bone-specific
pharmacologic and toxicologic endpoints are needed.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on nonclinical
evaluation of drugs intended for the treatment of osteoporosis. It does
not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or
the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 8, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-13988 Filed 6-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


From: Kristin Parrish To: Mary Tom Kissell C439 03 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Date: July 21, 2003 Project: Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) NESHAP Re: Meeting Minutes for the July 18, 2003 Conference Call Between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), the American Forest and Paper Association ( AF& PA), and Representatives of the PCWP Industry 1. Purpose The EPA participated in a conference call with members of AF& PA and other representatives of the PCWP industry on July 18, 2003, to discuss EPA's consideration of various industry comments submitted during the public comment period for the proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) NESHAP. The list of participants is included as Attachment 1.

2. Discussion The industry representatives asked EPA for the status of the decision making phase of the final PCWP NESHAP. The EPA representative replied that the EPA is continuing to respond to non risk comments, some of which require further research. The EPA has not yet made final decisions on many of the issues.

To address the issue of lumber kiln coverage in the PCWP NESHAP, the EPA representative stated that EPA plans to schedule a meeting in August with stakeholders. The 2 industry representatives noted that they still feel strongly that all lumber kilns should be included in PCWP NESHAP. They noted that the smaller companies may not be aware of the long term advantages, including the cessation of case by case MACT determinations. The EPA representative clarified that the only kilns under consideration for removal from the PCWP NESHAP are lumber kilns not co located with a PCWP facility; the co located kilns will still be included. The industry representatives assured EPA that they understood the issue correctly and noted that their larger companies represent many of the non co located kilns as well as the colocated kilns. The industry representatives asked EPA to identify the adverse commenters, and RTI responded that the Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association ( SLMA), Brooks Manufacturing Company, and various members of the Western Wood Preservers Institute want to remove stand alone kilns from the PCWP NESHAP. The industry representatives noted that they may wait to contact these commenters since the August meeting request has not been sent to any of the stakeholders yet.

The discussion then turned to the issues of startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM)

events and process and control device downtime. First, the industry representatives requested that EPA change the wording of the rule regarding SSM events and remove the word " scheduled"

from the reference to the startup and shutdown exemption to be consistent with latest version of the NESHAP General Provisions. Second, the industry representatives reiterated that EPA should specifically address gas fired veneer dryer relights in the rule and consider the safety issues involved. They stated this is an important issue because relights occur frequently and may not fit well into the SSM provisions. Third, the industry representatives requested that EPA reanalyze the data provided by the industry and grant a longer routine control device maintenance downtime allowance. The industry representatives noted that the data EPA used to determine the downtime allowance covered a one year period and may not include some of the large maintenance events that do not occur annually ( e. g., media replacements). An RTI representative noted that the project team has been focusing on overarching issues that affect the entire rule, such as MACT floor determinations. The RTI representative added that issues relating to SSM and control device maintenance downtime are important but have not yet been given as much attention because these issues are considered to be fine tuning of the rule.

Regarding press enclosure requirements and continuous presses, the industry representatives stated that they had spoken with representatives from J. M. Huber and that both 3 parties agreed on all the press issues. However, the AF& PA members are more concerned with the requirement in the proposed PCWP NESHAP to certify all permanent total enclosures ( PTEs)

by Method 204. The issues surrounding Method 204 certification are the same for both batch and continuous presses. The EPA representative responded that EPA is trying to set up a site visit at a facility with a long continuous press sometime in August to help them better understand the issues. The EPA representative noted that the project team has discussed the press enclosure requirements with EPA's Emission Measurement Center ( EMC). Several possibilities have been discussed, including the industry representatives' suggestion of dropping the Method 204 certification requirement, but EPA has not yet made a decision.

The next issue of concern to the industry representatives was the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. Rather than summarize all of their detailed public comments, the industry representatives focused on the issue most important to them and specifically emphasized that the proposed 3 hour block averages should be changed to 12 hour block averages because of measurement variability. The EPA representative acknowledged the request, noted that no decisions have been made with regard to monitoring and recordkeeping, and stated that EPA would contact the industry representatives if any further clarification was needed.

The industry representatives then stated that as a follow up to the June 4, 2003, meeting ( see Docket A 98 44, Item # IV E 6 for meeting minutes), they are preparing a paper discussing the potential overlap of the PCWP MACT with the Boiler MACT. During that meeting, EPA representatives asked for information on the amount of time that combustion exhaust bypassed a control device, and this paper should help to answer that question. The industry representatives noted that their paper should be available by mid August.

The production based emission limits ( PBELs) were the next topic of discussion. Phil Ferguson of International Paper and Lawrence Otwell of Georgia Pacific referred to emails that they sent to EPA earlier in July ( see Attachment 2 and Attachment 3). The emails provided a partial list of current pollution prevention ( P2) projects and a few options for incorporating addon control devices with the PBEL. Regarding the list of P2 projects, the industry representatives noted that the list is not complete and asked EPA if process incineration could be considered P2.

The industry representatives noted that incineration based add on control devices require natural gas, and one industry representative estimated that the price of natural gas is as much as $ 5 or 4 $ 6/ MMBtu. In addition, using onsite boilers to incinerate process exhaust is better overall for the environment than operating add on control devices. The EPA representative responded that EPA needs to be consistent with the PCWP MACT floor determinations and with other regulations.

The industry representatives noted that people who have already spent a lot of money on P2 practices will have to spend more money in order to comply with the rule. The industry representatives then addressed the combined use of add on controls and the PBEL. They noted that a facility that uses P2 to achieve the PBEL faces limited flexibility in the operation of the plant and extra recordkeeping, as well as the real possibility that they will not be able to achieve continuous compliance. As a result, PCWP facilities consider all the factors of attempting a P2 project carefully before making a commitment. If a facility is only going to save a small amount of money by implementing a P2 project, that facility will be more likely to install add on controls and have the flexibility to run the plant under a wider range of conditions. There are other costs built into P2 projects as well; for example, if a facility runs a dryer at a lower temperature, then the facility has to have more dryers to achieve the same level of production. The industry representatives proposed that facilities be allowed to install an add on device and then " discount"

the PBEL. In other words, facilities combining add on controls and PBEL would have to achieve a lower emission limit. ( See Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 for more details on this proposal.)

The industry representatives noted that achieving continuous compliance is the key, and the variability of the process will make it hard to stay below the PBEL without add on controls. The industry representatives asked when EPA will make a decision on this issue, and the EPA representative stated that the project team needs to make most of the decisions on the non risk issues, including the PBEL, by the end of August. The EPA representative stated again that the PBEL is not as stringent as MACT and was developed in order to recognize low emitting sources.

The industry representatives then asked EPA about the MACT floor for new sources.

The industry representatives acknowledged that some emission points show better than 90 percent control but noted that there is a lot of variation in the data. The industry representatives stated that there is support for their position in the case law, which says that EPA must consider the performance of the best controlled unit under the reasonably foreseeable worst case operating conditions and variability of new and existing sources. The EPA representative acknowledged the variability and stated that she plans to recommend that the control efficiency at new sources 5 remain at 90 percent.

John Bradfield of the Composite Panel Association ( CPA) mentioned the email that he sent to EPA concerning antifungal coatings. The EPA representative stated that EPA will review the proposed language provided by CPA. ( See Attachment 4 for a copy of the email.)

The industry representatives then stated that they thought they had answered all of EPA's questions from the June 4 meeting ( see Docket A 98 44, Item # IV E 6, Attachment 4).

The industry representatives asked EPA to contact them if any further clarification is needed. The EPA representative agreed and asked the industry representatives to contact Sally Shaver,

Director of the Emission Standards Division, or the project team if they plan to meet with the EPA management to discuss any non risk issues.

The industry representatives noted that they are planning an implementation workshop during the summer of 2004 and asked EPA if they were planning to prepare implementation materials. The EPA representative stated that implementation materials are not generally written that soon after promulgation and noted that Karen Blanchard is the group leader for the Program Implementation and Review Group within the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The EPA representative stated that EPA will likely prepare implementation materials to assist the States and EPA Regions with implementation.

Finally the industry representatives asked if EPA would like to try to set up a site visit with one of their members to see a long continuous press. The EPA representative noted that the project team is currently discussing site visits with Norbord, but the plant being considered is further away than they would like. The industry representatives then asked what EPA's criteria are for choosing a site to visit. The RTI representatives responded that there is not a long list;

they mainly want to visit a plant with a long continuous press that is close to North Carolina to minimize travel time and cost. If possible, they would like to visit with a company that has tried both partial and total enclosures on long continuous presses, and if the press has a partial enclosure, they would like to see the pick up points. The industry representatives noted that Weyerhaeuser's Bennettsville, SC, facility has a long continuous press and a building enclosure,

and they indicated that a visit to that plant might be possible. The EPA representative noted that EPA wants to make sure that they make the right decision on this issue since long continuous presses seem to be the trend of the future. 6 The EPA representative mentioned that she had been asked by an environmental group for documentation of meetings with industry that occurred after proposal. She stated that the documents would be sent to the environmental group well as to the docket.

The teleconference was then adjourned. Attachment 1 List of Participants U. S. EPA Mary Tom Kissell, OAQPS PCWP Industry Kurt Bigbee, APA  The Engineered Wood Association John Bradfield, Composite Panel Association Allison Casey, Masonite Victor Dallons, Weyerhaeuser Phil Ferguson, International Paper Larry Gill, Simpson Timber David Harvey, Louisiana Pacific Corporation Don Hejna, Potlatch Corporation Tim Hunt, American Forest and Paper Association Rob Kaufman, Georgia Pacific Corporation Claudia O'Brien, Latham and Watkins, Counsel for American Forest and Paper Association John Orynawka, Temple Inland Corporation Lawrence Otwell, Georgia Pacific Corporation John Pinkerton, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Jim Rabe, Masonite Paul Vasquez, Georgia Pacific Corporation Louis Wagner, American Fiberboard Association/ Composite Panel Association Stephen Woock, Weyerhaeuser Research Triangle Institute Katie Hanks Rebecca Nicholson Kristin Parrish Attachment 2 Email from Phil Ferguson to EPA on July 15, 2003 Regarding Pollution Prevention and Production Based Emission Limits From: Phil Ferguson [ mailto: Phil. Ferguson@ ipaper. com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5: 41 PM To: rlnicholson@ rti. org; kissell. mary@ epa. gov Cc: tim_ hunt@ afandpa. org; chuck. vaught@ weyerhaeuser. com; dave. harvey@ lpcorp. com; kurt. bigbee@ apawood. org; jbradfield@ cpamail. org; lpotwell@ gapac. com; acasey@ masonite. com Subject: Production Based Emission Limits To comply with your request for brevity, I have outlined two ideas/ varations on PBEL's that we could discuss during the Friday conference call. I will also answer the question; what the industry considers pollution prevention per your request during our June 4 RTP meeting. We appreciate the opportunity to continue this dialogue and hope that these ideas will stimulate further flexibility in the PBEL compliance option.

The first is a variation on the ability to use of add on control in conjunction with PBEL. Add on controls such as an on site process boiler or a smaller RTO could be used, but only if the PBEL was discounted by some determined percent. We suggest 10 to 20 %. For example plywood veneer dryers have a PBEL of 0.022 lb/ MSF 3/ 8. If any add on controls were utilized, the PBEL would be reduced by some fixed percent, in this example 10% to 0.02 lb/ MSF 3/ 8. This option would further reduce HAP's and would encourage the use of smaller control devices or on site process incineration that do not have or have less collateral emissions than compliance with the 90% options. The industry would agree that any control device used in conjunction with a PBEL limit would need to operate at 90% control efficiency. This could diminish the concern that facilities would detune a control device.

In the second variation, the limits of add on control should be based on the same emission rates used to initially establish the PBEL ( i. e., the emission rate of 3 lbs HAP/ MSF ¾ was used as a basis for the OSB press PBEL). Limiting the amount of control that can be achieved to 10 25% of the emission rate used to establish the PBEL ( 0.3 lb to 0.75 lb/ MSF 3/ 4) would force plants to achieve most of their emission reductions through P2. Compliance tests would require a plant to show that, prior to application of add on control, emissions were within the required percentage chosen by EPA. This feature would give plants with continuous compliance concerns the incentive to proceed with P2 efforts.

We consider the following a partial list of pollution prevention within our industry. We believe additional examples and innovations will be contemplated if people believe they are close to or have a realistic shot at meeting a PBEL.

Low Temperature Drying  Reducing rated capacity of dryers by drying at lower temperatures. Conveyor Drying  Utilizes partial control by routing exhaust gases from the first dryer section into a burner section and recycling the heat back into the dryer. Species Control/ Substitution  Facilities could utilize lower HAP emitting species of raw material or combinations of such. Resin Reformulation  Utilize lower HAP emitting resins. Reducing Moisture Variability/ Precision Process Control  Using precision process control, facilities can limit high moisture regions in boards and flakes that contribute to overdrying and high HAP emissions. Green Screening  By removing fines, facilities can reduce HAP emissions by eliminating these small particles that because of their surface area overdry and release additional HAP's. Reduction of Temperature Stratification  Reduce the temperature stratification within flake dryers that prevent overdrying.

If you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact me at ( 901) 419 3880. Attachment 3 Email from Lawrence Otwell to EPA on July 17, 2003 Regarding Production Based Emission Limits From: Otwell, Lawrence P. [ mailto: LPOTWELL@ GAPAC. com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3: 57 PM To: ' Ferguson, Phil ( IP)'; ' Nicholson, Becky ( RTI)'; ' Kissell, Mary Tom ( EPA)' Cc: ' Hunt, Tim ( AF& PA)'; ' Vaught, Chuck ( WEYCO)'; ' Harvey, Dave ( LP)'; ' Bigbee, Kurt ( APA)'; ' Bradfield, John ( CPA)'; ' Casey, Allison ( Masonite)' Subject: RE: PBELs I'm re forwarding the mssg below because it either did not go thru or was partially cut off for others. The original was sent via a remote system. A second attempt ran into some address copying and firewall issues.

Mary Tom and Becky, just to add a bit of addition clarification to Phil's excellent digest of our thoughts, we came upon the " discounting" notion while reviewing some of the difficulties with the notion of limiting the use of addons to some fixed small percentage of the overall PBEL required reduction. The main difficulty would be in determining and documenting the starting point. P2 projects begin with something of a site specific baseline that has a significant degree of variability and then a number of iterative, incremental changes are made over time to reduce emissions. This makes the starting point difficult to pin down. There also might be a temptation to run hard, hot, and dirty to establish that baseline and inflate the emissions available for addon control.

The discount approach was envisioned to eliminate some of these uncertainties while addressing your legitimate concerns re: abuse of add on controls. I think it's very important to recognize, however, that from a practical standpoint no one is going to even consider the use of add ons within a PBEL unless the sizing on the add on is significantly less than that required for full control. An add on of, say, 75% 80% of full control will cost almost as much to install and operate and the PBEL portion will add significant monitoring/ recordkeeping/ reporting burdens as well as compliance risk. It will also limit process operational flexibility. As a purely business decision, one would not even consider doing that when you could pay a very little more and run your process as hot, hard, and dirty as you wanted. Realistically, I personally think an add on within a PBEL would have to be 50% or less of the size of a full control to even be considered in the business context. By discounting the PBEL if an add on is used, that critcal sizing point is pushed down even further, assuring that deeper P2 cuts are needed to support the 50% or less sizing threshold. The environment gets the benefit of the additional emissions reductions from the discount plus the energy, greenhouse gas, and collateral emissions benefit of the small add on control. The additional compliance margin from the add on control also then opens up more options for P2 that might otherwise be viewed as being too risky from a continuous compliance standpoint.

Thanks for your continued attention and patience on this important issue.

L. Otwell Lawrence Otwell Senior Environmental Engineer Technical Support Group Georgia Pacific Corporation Phone: ( 404) 652 5081 Fax: ( 404) 654 4706 E mail: lpotwell@ gapac. com Attachment 4 Email from John Bradfield to EPA on July 16, 2003 Regarding Miscellaneous Coating Operations MACT Definitions From: Bradfield, John [ mailto: jbradfield@ cpamail. org]

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8: 52 AM To: Hanks, Katie P.

Cc: KISSELL MARY TOM ( KISSELL, MARY TOM); Otwell Lawrence ( Otwell, Lawrence); Otwell Lawrence ( home) ( Otwell, Lawrence ( home)); Vasquez Paul ( Vasquez, Paul); Hunt Tim ( Hunt, Tim); George Ellis ( E mail); Ferguson, Phil; Bigbee Kurt ( Bigbee, Kurt); Wagner, Louis Subject: MACT Definitions Katie,

At our June meeting we promised to provide you with some language to help clarify coverage/ overlap issues that were not completely resolved in the final Wood Building Products surface Coating MACT. Here are our suggestions.

<< MACT Overlap Antifungal fiberboard Fix. doc>>

John Bradfield: jbradfield@ cpamail. org Director of Environmental Affairs Composite Panel Association 18922 Premiere Court Gaithersburg, MD 20879 1574 USA 301.670.0604 x229 Fax: 301.840.1252 Visit the CPA Web Site: http:\\ www. pbmdf. com MEMORANDUM TO: Katie Hanks, RTI FROM: John Bradfield DATE: July 16, 2003 SUBJECT: Coating Definition At our June meeting we promised to provide you with some language to help clarify coverage/ overlap issues that were not completely resolved in the final Wood Building Products surface Coating MACT. Here are our suggestions. Changes are in .

As recommended in the AF& PA comments:

Miscellaneous coating operations means application of any of the following to plywood or composite wood products: edge seals, moisture sealants, anti skid coatings, company logos, trademark or grade stamps, nail lines, synthetic patches, wood patches, wood putty, concrete forming oils, glues for veneer composing, and shelving edge fillers. Miscellaneous coating operations also include the application of coatings to full sheets of panel products such as primer to OSB siding or fills to create a smooth surface that occurs at the same site as OSB manufacture.

Suggestions to clarify coverage related to Wood Building Products Surface Coating MACT.

Miscellaneous coating operations means application of any of the following to plywood or composite wood products edge seals, moisture sealants, anti skid coatings, company logos, trademark or grade stamps, nail lines, synthetic patches, wood patches, wood putty, concrete forming oils, glues for veneer composing, and shelving edge fillers. Miscellaneous coating operations also include the application of coatings to full sheets of panel products such as primer to OSB siding or fills to create a smooth surface that occurs at the same site as OSB manufacture.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40541]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16272]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 GDT Tek, Inc., Gemini Explorations, Inc., Genetic Vectors, Inc.,
and Global Gate Property Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading

 July 2, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
GDT Tek, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended June 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Gemini Explorations, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended July 31, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Genetic Vectors, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Global Gate Property Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2011.
    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 July 2, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 16, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16272 Filed 7-2-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35326-35327]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0008; FRL-9684-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Minor New Source Review (NSR) Preconstruction Permitting Rule for
Cotton Gins

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the applicable minor
New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for New Mexico
submitted by the state of New Mexico on April 25, 2005, which
incorporates a new regulation related to minor NSR preconstruction
permitting for particulate matter emissions from cotton ginning
facilities. The submitted Cotton Gin regulation provides an alternative
preconstruction process for cotton ginning facilities that will emit no
more than 50 tons per year of particulate matter. The new regulation
prescribes, at a minimum, best technical control equipment standards,
opacity limitations, and fugitive dust management plan requirements to
minimize particulate matter emissions and establishes a minimum setback
distance from the gin to the property

line. EPA has determined that this SIP revision complies with the Clean
Air Act and EPA regulations and is consistent with EPA policies. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted
electronically of through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 30, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-14156 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P