[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5488-5489]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0830]

National Boating Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications from persons
interested in the membership on the National Boating Safety Advisory
Committee (Committee) to fill two vacancies. This Committee advises the
Coast Guard on matters related to national recreational boating safety.

DATES: Your completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on
or before March 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Applications should include a cover letter expressing
interest in an appointment to the National Boating Safety Advisory
Committee and a resume detailing the applicant's boating experience
with a brief biography. Incomplete applications will not be considered.
    Applications should be submitted via email with subject line
``Application for NBSAC'' to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Decker, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Boating Safety Advisory Committee;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Boating Safety Advisory
Committee is a Federal advisory committee. The Committee operates under
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C.
appendix) in addition to the administrative provisions in section 601
of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018
(specifically, 46 U.S.C. 15109).
    The Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by section 601
of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. No
115-282, 132 Stat 4192). That authority is codified, at 46 U.S.C.
15105. The Committee is required to meet at least once a year in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a). We expect the Committee will hold
meetings at least twice a year. The meetings are held virtually or at a
location selected by the U.S. Coast Guard.
    All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or
other compensation from the Federal Government. Members may be
reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel
Regulations.
    Under provisions in 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as
a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December
31st of the third full year after the effective date of your
appointment. The Secretary may require an individual to have passed an
appropriate security background examination before appointment to the
Committee, 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4).
    In this solicitation for Committee members, we will consider
applications for two (2) positions:
     One member to represent State officials responsible for
State boating safety programs.

     One member to represent recreational vessel and associated
equipment manufacturers.
    Each member of the Committee must have particular expertise,
knowledge, and experience on matters related to national boating
safety.
    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in
selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age,
membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor.
The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse
candidate pool for all of its recruitment selections.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, email your cover letter and resume along with the brief
biography to [email protected] via the transmittal method provided in the
ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice.

    Dated: January 26, 2022.
Wayne R. Arguin, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-02016 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45980-45981]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0826]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation;
cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is canceling the temporary deviation
concerning the Morrison Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.8,
at Portland, Oregon. A temporary interim rule has been approved which
grants the bridge owner, Multnomah County, an extension of time to
replace the bridge decking. The temporary interim rule effectively
replaces the temporary deviation.

DATES: The temporary deviation published on September 1, 2017 (82 FR
41520), is cancelled as of October 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0826, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 1, 2017, we published a
temporary deviation entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Willamette River, Portland, OR'' in the Federal Register (82 FR 41520).
The temporary deviation provided Multnomah County with additional time
to complete necessary bridge repairs. This deviation was authorized
under 33 CFR 117.35.
    While replacing the bridge decking, the bridge owner's construction
crew experienced delays with both material deliveries and machining
bolt hole tolerances. Therefore, more time was needed to complete the
necessary tests and inspections. The subject temporary deviation was
approved by mistake in an attempt to give the bridge owner more time to
finish construction. After approval of the temporary deviation it was
discovered that 180 days would not be enough time to complete
construction. After we approved this temporary deviation, we approved a
temporary interim rule in order to provide more time to finish the
bridge construction. The temporary interim rule effectively replaces
the temporary deviation. Therefore, we are cancelling this temporary
deviation; docket number USCG-2017-0826 concerning the Morrison Bridge.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-21169 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 14841]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

New River Railway Company (Docket Number FRA-2009-0005)

    The New River Railway Company (NR) of Devonia, Tennessee, has
petitioned for a permanent waiver of compliance for one locomotive (SOU
520) and two rail passenger coaches (NR 290 and NR 808) from the
requirements of the Railroad Safety Glazing Standards, Title 49 CFR
Part 223, which require certified glazing in all windows. The
locomotive, as well as the two coaches, are in good condition with no
defective glass.
    NR operates between Huntsville and Devonia, Tennessee, a distance
of approximately 32 miles, only on Saturday and Sunday. The territory
is farm land, dense woodland and tall hills following NR. The operating
speed is between 10 and 15 miles per hour (mph) and slowed down to 5
mph at times for passengers to view certain scenery. NR states that
there is no history of vandalism involving their operations. NR also
states that no one makes the safety glazing for the subject locomotive
and the coaches because of the age of the equipment, and that to have
the glazing specially made to FRA specifications for this equipment
could cost more than the equipment would be worth to start with.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0005) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2009
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
 [FR Doc. E9-7251 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 1 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads <IP_ADDRESS> General When a vehicle travels an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road surface causes pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed.

<IP_ADDRESS> Emissions Calculation And Correction Parameters1 6 The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. Field investigations also have shown that emissions depend on source parameters that characterize the condition of a particular road and the associated vehicle traffic. Characterization of these source parameters allow for " correction" of emission estimates to specific road and traffic conditions.

Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary directly with the fraction of silt ( particles smaller than 75 micrometers [ µ m] in diameter) in the road surface materials. 1 The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of loose dry surface dust that passes a 200 mesh screen, using the ASTM C 136 method. A summary of this method is contained in Appendix C of AP 42. Table 13.2.2 1 summarizes measured silt values for industrial and public unpaved roads. It should be noted that the ranges of silt content vary over two orders of magnitude. Therefore, the use of data from this table can potentially introduce considerable error. Use of this data is strongly discouraged when it is feasible to obtain locally gathered data.

Since the silt content of a rural dirt road will vary with geographic location, it should be measured for use in projecting emissions. As a conservative approximation, the silt content of the parent soil in the area can be used. Tests, however, show that road silt content is normally lower than in the surrounding parent soil, because the fines are continually removed by the vehicle traffic, leaving a higher percentage of coarse particles.

The PM 10 and TSP emission factors presented below are the outcomes from stepwise linear regressions of field emission test results of vehicles traveling over unpaved surfaces. The results from 180 PM 10 and 92 TSP field tests were used to develop the predictive emission factor expressions. Due to a limited amount of information available for PM 2.5, the expression for that size range has been scaled against the result for PM 10. Consequently, the quality rating for the PM 2.5 factor is lower than that for the PM 10 expression. The background document for AP 42 Section 13.2.2 ( Reference 6) fully describes the process used to develop and validate the emission factor expressions. 13.2.2 2 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 Table 13.2.2 1. TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIAL ON INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADSa Industry Road Use Or Surface Material Plant Sites No. Of Samples Silt Content (%)

Range Mean Copper smelting Plant road 1 3 16  19 17 Iron and steel production Plant road 19 135 0.2  19 6.0 Sand and gravel processing Plant road 1 3 4.1  6.0 4.8 Material storage area 1 1  7.1 Stone quarrying and processing Plant road 2 10 2.4  16 10 Haul road to/ from pit 4 20 5.0 15 8.3 Taconite mining and processing Service road 1 8 2.4  7.1 4.3 Haul road to/ from pit 1 12 3.9  9.7 5.8 Western surface coal mining Haul road to/ from pit 3 21 2.8  18 8.4 Plant road 2 2 4.9  5.3 5.1 Scraper route 3 10 7.2  25 17 Haul road ( freshly graded) 2 5 18  29 24 Construction sites Scraper routes 7 20 0.56 23 8.5 Lumber sawmills Log yards 2 2 4.8 12 8.4 Municipal solid waste landfills Disposal routes 4 20 2.2  21 6.4 Publicly accessible roads Gravel/ crushed limestone 9 46 0.1 15 6.4 Dirt ( i. e., local material compacted, bladed, and crowned) 8 24 0.83 68 11 aReferences 1,5 16. 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 3 E ' k ( s/ 12) a ( W/ 3) b ( M/ 0.2) c ( 1) The following empirical expression may be used to estimate the quantity in pounds ( lb) of size specific particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle mile traveled ( VMT):

where k, a, b and c are empirical constants ( Reference 6) given below and E = size specific emission factor ( lb/ VMT) s = surface material silt content (%) W = mean vehicle weight ( tons) M = surface material moisture content (%)

The source characteristics s, W and M are referred to as correction parameters for adjusting the emission estimates to local conditions. The metric conversion from lb/ VMT to grams ( g) per vehicle kilometer traveled ( VKT) is as follows:

1 lb/ VMT = 281.9 g/ VKT The constants for Equation 1 based on the stated aerodynamic particle sizes are shown in Table 13.2.2 2.

Table 13.2.2 2. CONSTANTS FOR EQUATION 1 Constant PM 2.5 PM 10 PM 30a k ( lb/ VMT) 0.38 2.6 10 a 0.8 0.8 0.8 b 0.4 0.4 0.5 c 0.3 0.3 0.4 Quality rating C B B aAssumed equivalent to total suspended particulate ( TSP).

Table 13.2.2 2 also contains the quality ratings for the various size specific versions of Equation 1. The equation retains the assigned quality rating, if applied within the ranges of source conditions, shown in Table 13.2.2 3, that were tested in developing the equation:

Table 13.2.2 3. RANGE OF SOURCE CONDITIONS USED IN DEVELOPING EQUATION 1 Surface Silt Content, % Mean Vehicle Weight Mean Vehicle Speed Mean No. of Wheels Surface Moisture Content, % Mg ton km/ hr mph 1.2 35 1.4 260 1.5 290 8 88a 5 55a 4 7a 0.03 20 a See discussion in text.

As noted earlier, Equation 1 was developed from tests of traffic on unpaved surfaces, either uncontrolled or watered. Unpaved roads have a hard, generally nonporous surface that usually dries quickly after a rainfall or watering, because of traffic enhanced natural evaporation. ( Factors influencing 13.2.2 4 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 how fast a road dries are discussed in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, below.) The quality ratings given above pertain to the mid range of the measured source conditions for the equation. A higher mean vehicle weight and a higher than normal traffic rate may be justified when performing a worst case analysis of emissions from unpaved roads.

It is important to note that the vehicle related source conditions refer to the average weight, speed, and number of wheels for all vehicles traveling the road. For example, if 98 percent of traffic on the road are 2 ton cars and trucks while the remaining 2 percent consists of 20 ton trucks, then the mean weight is 2.4 tons. More specifically, Equation 1 is not intended to be used to calculate a separate emission factor for each vehicle class within a mix of traffic on a given unpaved road. That is, in the example, one should not determine one factor for the 2 ton vehicles and a second factor for the 20 ton trucks. Instead, only one emission factor should be calculated that represents the " fleet" average of 2.4 tons for all vehicles traveling the road.

Furthermore, although mean vehicle speed and the mean number of wheels do not explicitly appear in the predictive equation, these variables should be considered when determining quality ratings. During the validation of Equation 1, it was found that the predictive equation tends to overpredict emissions for very slow mean vehicle speeds.

The background document ( Reference 6) discusses this tendency for very slow vehicles speeds. The background document further notes that no bias is evident for mean vehicle speeds of at least 15 mph.

In the case of a mean vehicle speed less than 15 mph, Equation 1 could be used to conservatively estimate the amount of emissions due to traffic over the unpaved surface. Should one wish to account for the tendency for Equation 1 to overestimate at low speeds, it is recommended that Equation 1 be multiplied by ( S/ 15), where S is the average vehicle speed ( mph) and S # 15 mph. Again, note that this applies only to situations in which the average vehicle speed is less than 15 mph. Furthermore, if Equation 1 is multiplied by ( S/ 15), then the quality rating of the emission estimate should be downgraded by at least one letter.

Moreover, to retain the quality ratings when addressing a group of unpaved roads, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values be determined for the road in question. The field and laboratory procedures for determining road surface silt and moisture contents are given in AP 42 Appendices C. 1 and C. 2. Vehicle related parameters should be developed by recording visual observations of traffic. In some cases, vehicle parameters for industrial unpaved roads can be determined by reviewing maintenance records or other information sources at the facility.

In the event that site specific values for correction parameters cannot be obtained, then default values may be used. A default value of 2.2 tons is recommended for the mean vehicle weight on publicly accessible unpaved roads. ( It is assumed that readers addressing industrial roads have access to the information needed to develop average vehicle information for their facility.) In the absence of site specific silt content information, an appropriate mean value from Table 13.2.2 1 may be used as a default value, but the quality rating of the equation is reduced by two letters. Because of significant differences found between different types of road surfaces and between different areas of the country, use of the default moisture content value of 0.2 percent for dry conditions is discouraged. The quality rating should be downgraded two letters when the default moisture content value is used.

The effect of routine watering to control emissions from unpaved roads is discussed below in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, " Controls". However, all roads are subject to some natural mitigation because of rainfall and other precipitation. Equation 1 can be extrapolated to annual average uncontrolled conditions ( but 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 5 E ext ' k ( s/ 12) a ( W/ 3) b)

( M dry/ 0.2) c [( 365 & p) / 365] ( 2) including natural mitigation) under the simplifying assumption that annual average emissions are inversely proportional to the number of days with measurable ( more than 0.254 mm [ 0.01 inch]) precipitation:

where s, W, k, a, b and c are as given earlier and Eext = annual size specific emission factor extrapolated for natural mitigation, lb/ VMT Mdry = surface material moisture content under dry, uncontrolled conditions, % p = number of days with at least 0.254 mm ( 0.01 in) of precipitation per year ( see below)

Figure 13.2.2 1 gives the geographical distribution for the mean annual number of " wet" days for the United States. Although the use of information from this table is reasonable for estimating an average emission factor, it would not be reasonable to use this information to estimate an actual emission factor for a specific year. Reported meteorological information should be used for estimating actual emission factors.

It is emphasized that the moisture content to be used in Equation 2  Mdry  must reference dry, worst case conditions. In the absence of the appropriate site specific information, the default value of 0.2 percent should be used in Equation 2.

Equation 2 provides an estimate that accounts for precipitation on an annual average basis for the purpose of inventorying emissions. It should be noted that Equation 2 does not account for differences in the temporal distributions of the rain events, the quantity of rain during any event, or the potential for the rain to evaporate from the road surface. In the event that a finer temporal and spatial resolution is desired for inventories of public unpaved roads, estimates can be based on a more complex set of assumptions. These assumptions include:

1. The moisture content of the road surface material is increased in proportion to the quantity of water added; 2. The moisture content of the road surface material is reduced in proportion to the Class A pan evaporation rate; 3. The moisture content of the road surface material is reduced in proportion to the traffic volume; and 4. The moisture content of the road surface material varies between the extremes observed in the area. The CHIEF Web site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ ap42back. html) has a file which contains a spreadsheet program for calculating emission factors which are temporally and spatially resolved. Information required for use of the spreadsheet program includes monthly Class A pan evaporation values, hourly meteorological data for precipitation, humidity and snow cover, vehicle traffic information, and road surface material information.

It is emphasized that the simple assumption underlying Equation 2 and the more complex set of assumptions underlying the use of the procedure which produces a finer temporal and spatial resolution have not been verified in any rigorous manner. For this reason, the quality ratings for either approach should be downgraded one letter from the rating that would be applied to Equation 1. 13.2.2 6 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 <IP_ADDRESS> Controls18 22 A wide variety of options exist to control emissions from unpaved roads. Options fall into the following three groupings:

1. Vehicle restrictions that limit the speed, weight or number of vehicles on the road; 2. Surface improvement, by measures such as ( a) paving or ( b) adding gravel or slag to a dirt road; and 3. Surface treatment, such as watering or treatment with chemical dust suppressants.

Available control options span broad ranges in terms of cost, efficiency, and applicability. For example, traffic controls provide moderate emission reductions ( often at little cost) but are difficult to enforce. Although paving is highly effective, its high initial cost is often prohibitive. Furthermore, paving is not feasible for industrial roads subject to very heavy vehicles and/ or spillage of material in transport. Watering and chemical suppressants, on the other hand, are potentially applicable to most industrial roads at moderate to low costs. However, these require frequent reapplication to maintain an acceptable level of control. Chemical suppressants are generally more cost effective than water but not in cases of temporary roads ( which are common at mines, landfills, and construction sites). In summary, then, one needs to consider not only the type and volume of traffic on the road but also how long the road will be in service when developing control plans.

Vehicle restrictions. These measures seek to limit the amount and type of traffic present on the road or to lower the mean vehicle speed. For example, many industrial plants have restricted employees from driving on plant property and have instead instituted bussing programs. This eliminates emissions due to employees traveling to/ from their worksites. Although the heavier average vehicle weight of the busses increases the base emission factor, the decrease in vehicle miles traveled results in a lower overall emission rate.

Although vehicle speed does not appear as a correction parameter, it is obvious to anyone who has driven on an unpaved road that ( visible) emissions increase with vehicle speed. Accordingly, speed reduction is a clearly viable control measure. However, as with the source parameters that do appear in Equation 1, the control measure must effectively reduce the fleet average speed. In order to substantially reduce the speed of all vehicles, this control option is most applicable to rural public roads. However, effective enforcement of the new speed limit may prove problematic.

Currently available short term tests suggest that the control efficiency afforded by speed reduction should be considered as linear. Thus, if the average speed is effectively reduced by 30 percent ( e. g., from 50 to 35 mph), then a control efficiency of 30 percent should be applied to the emission factor. The background document discusses how past testing programs used " captive" traffic to tightly control vehicular characteristics. These tests involve very short periods ( 1 to 2 hr) of increased or reduced travel speeds. Under these conditions, it was found that emissions depend upon speed raised to a power between 1 and 2. However, exploratory analysis of the data supporting the equation in this section indicated that emissions were poorly correlated with speed raised to the power of approximately 0.3. As a result, it is believed that if the long term, average speed is reduced on an unpaved road, the road surface silt content can be expected to change. In other words, the silt content will reach a new equilibrium condition as the grinding of material is balanced by the emission process. It is strongly recommended that any prospective emission reduction credit based upon speed reduction be based upon the ratio of speeds raised to the 0.3 power. After 6 months operation at the slower speed a new road surface sample should be collected 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 7 Figure 13.2.2 1. Mean number of days with 0.01 inch or more of precipitation in United States. 13.2.2 8 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 and analyzed ( in the manner described in Appendices C. 1 and C. 2). The new surface silt content should then be used in Equation 1 for calculation of a new uncontrolled emission factor, without further adjustment for speed.

Surface improvements. Control options in this category alter the road surface. As opposed to the " surface treatments" discussed below, improvements are relatively " permanent" and do not require periodic retreatment.

The most obvious surface improvement is paving an unpaved road. This option is quite expensive and is probably most applicable to relatively short stretches of unpaved road with at least several hundred vehicle passes per day. Furthermore, if the newly paved road is located near unpaved areas or is used to transport material, it is essential that the control plan address routine cleaning of the newly paved road surface.

The control efficiencies achievable by paving can be estimated by comparing emission factors for unpaved and paved road conditions. The predictive emission factor equation for paved roads, given in Section 13.2.1, requires estimation of the silt loading on the traveled portion of the paved surface, which in turn depends on whether the pavement is periodically cleaned. Unless curbing is to be installed, the effects of vehicle excursion onto unpaved shoulders ( berms) also must be taken into account in estimating the control efficiency of paving.

Other improvement methods cover the road surface with another material that has a lower silt content. Examples include placing gravel or slag on a dirt road. Control efficiency can be estimated by comparing the emission factors obtained using the silt contents before and after improvement. The silt content of the road surface should be determined after 3 to 6 months rather than immediately following placement. Control plans should address regular maintenance practices, such as grading, to retain larger aggregate on the traveled portion of the road.

Surface treatments refer to control options which require periodic reapplication. Treatments fall into the two main categories of ( a) " wet suppression" ( i. e., watering, possibly with surfactants or other additives), which keeps the road surface wet to control emissions and ( b) " chemical stabilization/ treatment", which attempts to change the physical characteristics of the surface. The necessary reapplication frequency varies from several minutes for plain water under summertime conditions to several weeks or months for chemical dust suppressants.

Watering increases the moisture content, which conglomerates particles and reduces their likelihood to become suspended when vehicles pass over the surface. The control efficiency depends on how fast the road dries after water is added. This in turn depends on ( a) the amount ( per unit road surface area) of water added during each application; ( b) the period of time between applications; ( c) the weight, speed and number of vehicles traveling over the watered road during the period between applications; and ( d) meteorological conditions ( temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, etc.) that affect evaporation during the period.

Given the complicated nature of how the road dries, characterization of emissions from watered roadways is best done by collecting material samples at various times between water truck passes. ( Appendices C. 1 and C. 2 present the sampling and analysis procedures.) The time averaged moisture content is then substituted into Equation 1. Samples that reflect average conditions during the watering cycle can take the form of either a series of samples between water applications or a single sample at the midpoint. It is essential that samples be collected during periods with active traffic on the road. Finally, 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 9 because of different evaporation rates, it is recommended that samples be collected at various times during the year. If only one set of samples is to be collected, these must be collected during hot, summertime conditions.

When developing watering control plans for roads that do not yet exist, it is strongly recommended that the moisture cycle be established by sampling similar roads in the same geographic area. If the moisture cycle cannot be established by similar roads using established watering control plans, the more complex methodology used to estimate the mitigation of rainfall and other precipitation can be used to estimate the control provided by routine watering. An estimate of the maximum daytime Class A pan evaporation ( based upon daily evaporation data published in the monthly Climatological Data for the state by the National Climatic Data Center) should be used to insure that adequate watering capability is available during periods of highest evaporation. The hourly precipitation values in the spreadsheet should be replaced with the equivalent inches of precipitation ( where the equivalent of 1 inch of precipitation is provided by an application of 5.6 gallons of water per square yard of road). Information on the long term average annual evaporation and on the percentage that occurs between May and October was published in the Climatic Atlas ( Reference 16). Figure 13.2.2 2 presents the geographical distribution for " Class A pan evaporation" throughout the United States. Figure 13.2.2 3 presents the geographical distribution of the percentage of this evaporation that occurs between May and October. The U. S. Weather Bureau Class A evaporation pan is a cylindrical metal container with a depth of 10 inches and a diameter of 48 inches. Periodic measurements are made of the changes of the water level.

The above methodology should be used only for prospective analyses and for designing watering programs for existing roadways. The quality rating of an emission factor for a watered road that is based on this methodology should be downgraded two letters. Periodic road surface samples should be collected and analyzed to verify the efficiency of the watering program.

As opposed to watering, chemical dust suppressants have much less frequent reapplication requirements. These materials suppress emissions by changing the physical characteristics of the existing road surface material. Many chemical unpaved road dust suppressants form a hardened surface that binds particles together. After several applications, a treated road often resembles a paved road except that the surface is not uniformly flat. Because the improved surface results in more grinding of small particles, the silt content of loose material on a highly controlled surface may be substantially higher than when the surface was uncontrolled. For this reason, Equation 1 cannot be used to estimate emissions from chemically stabilized roads. Should the road be allowed to return to an uncontrolled state with no visible signs of large scale cementing of material, Equation 1 could then be used to obtain conservatively high emission estimates.

The control effectiveness of chemical dust suppressants appears to depend on ( a) the dilution rate used in the mixture; ( b) the application rate ( volume of solution per unit road surface area); ( c) the time between applications; ( d) the size, speed and amount of traffic during the period between applications; and ( e) meteorological conditions ( rainfall, freeze/ thaw cycles, etc.) during the period. Other factors that affect the performance of dust suppressants include other traffic characteristics ( e. g., cornering, track on from unpaved areas) and road characteristics ( e. g., bearing strength, grade). The variabilities in the above factors and differences between individual dust control products make the control efficiencies of chemical dust suppressants difficult to estimate. Past field testing of emissions from controlled unpaved roads has shown that chemical dust suppressants provide a PM 10 control efficiency of about 80 percent when applied at regular intervals of 2 weeks to 1 month. 13.2.2 10 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 Figure 13.2.2 2. Annual evaporation data. 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 11 Figure 13.2.2 3. Geographical distribution of the percentage of evaporation occurring between May and October. 13.2.2 12 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 Table 13.2 2 4. EXAMPLE OF AVERAGE CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Period Ground Inventory, gal/ yd2 Average Control Efficiency, % a Average Controlled Emission Factor, lb/ VMT May 0.037 0 7.1 June 0.073 62 2.7 July 0.11 68 2.3 August 0.15 74 1.8 September 0.18 80 1.4 a From Figure 13.2.2 4, # 10 µ m. Zero efficiency assigned if ground inventory is less than 0.05 gal/ yd2. 1 lb/ VMT = 281.9 g/ VKT. 1 gal/ yd2 = 4.531 L/ m2. Petroleum resin products historically have been the dust suppressants ( besides water) most widely used on industrial unpaved roads. Figure 13.2.2 4 presents a method to estimate average control efficiencies associated with petroleum resins applied to unpaved roads. 20 Several items should be noted:

1. The term " ground inventory" represents the total volume ( per unit area) of petroleum resin concentrate ( not solution) applied since the start of the dust control season.

2. Because petroleum resin products must be periodically reapplied to unpaved roads, the use of a time averaged control efficiency value is appropriate. Figure 13.2.2 4 presents control efficiency values averaged over two common application intervals, 2 weeks and 1 month. Other application intervals will require interpolation.

3. Note that zero efficiency is assigned until the ground inventory reaches 0.05 gallon per square yard ( gal/ yd2). Requiring a minimum ground inventory ensures that one must apply a reasonable amount of chemical dust suppressant to a road before claiming credit for emission control. Recall that the ground inventory refers to the amount of petroleum resin concentrate rather than the total solution.

As an example of the application of Figure 13.2.2 4, suppose that the equation was used to estimate an emission factor of 7.1 lb/ VMT for PM 10 from a particular road. Also, suppose that, starting on May 1, the road is treated with 0.221 gal/ yd2 of a solution ( 1 part petroleum resin to 5 parts water) on the first of each month through September. Then, the average controlled emission factors, shown in Table 13.2.2 4, are found.

Besides petroleum resins, other newer dust suppressants have also been successful in controlling emissions from unpaved roads. Specific test results for those chemicals, as well as for petroleum resins and watering, are provided in References 18 through 21. 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 13 Figure 13.2.2 4. Average control efficiencies over common application intervals. 13.2.2 14 EMISSION FACTORS 9/ 98 <IP_ADDRESS> Updates Since The Fifth Edition The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995. Revisions to this section since that date are summarized below. For further detail, consult the background report for this section ( Reference 6).

October 1998 ( Supplement E) This was a major revision of this section. Significant changes to the text and the emission factor equations were made.

References For Section 13.2.2 1. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development Of Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA 450/ 3 74 037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

2. R. J. Dyck and J. J. Stukel, " Fugitive Dust Emissions From Trucks On Unpaved Roads", Environmental Science And Technology, 10( 10): 1046 1048, October 1976.

3. R. O. McCaldin and K. J. Heidel, " Particulate Emissions From Vehicle Travel Over Unpaved Roads", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, TX, June 1978.

4. C. Cowherd, Jr, et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation, EPA 600/ 2 79 013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

5. G. Muleski, Unpaved Road Emission Impact, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ, March 1991.

6. Emission Factor Documentation For AP 42, Section 13.2.2, Unpaved Roads, Final Report, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1998.

7. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.

8. Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68 03 2924, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

9. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation, EPA 600/ 2 83 110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1983.

10. Size Specific Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA Contract No. 68 02 3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.

11. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA 600/ 7 85 038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September 1985.

12. PM 10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract 68 02 3891, Work Assignment 30, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987. 9/ 98 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2 15 13. Chicago Area Particulate Matter Emission Inventory   Sampling And Analysis, EPA Contract No. 68 02 4395, Work Assignment 1, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1988.

14. PM 10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract No. 68 02 3888, Engineering Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

15. Oregon Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory, EPA Contract 68 D0 0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, January 1992.

16. Climatic Atlas Of The United States, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Washington, DC, June 1968.

17. National Climatic Data Center, Solar And Meteorological Surface Observation Network 1961 1990; 3 Volume CD ROM. Asheville, NC, 1993.

18. C. Cowherd, Jr. et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA 450/ 3 88 008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.

19. G. E. Muleski, et al., Extended Evaluation Of Unpaved Road Dust Suppressants In The Iron And Steel Industry, EPA 600/ 2 84 027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1984.

20. C. Cowherd, Jr., and J. S. Kinsey, Identification, Assessment And Control Of Fugitive Particulate Emissions, EPA 600/ 8 86 023, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, August 1986.

21. G. E. Muleski and C. Cowherd, Jr., Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Chemical Dust Suppressants On Unpaved Roads, EPA 600/ 2 87 102, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1986.

22. Fugitive Dust Background Document And Technical Information Document For Best Available Control Measures, EPA 450/ 2 92 004, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1992.


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45267-45268]
[DOCID:fr01se09-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Brooke Corporation; Order of Suspension of Trading

August 28, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Brooke Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports with
the Commission since the period ended June 30, 2008.
    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 company.
    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 company
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, August 28, 2009 through
11:59 p.m. EDT, on September 11, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21142 Filed 8-28-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26581-26582]
[DOCID:fr10my07-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8312-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects and clarifies an error in the preamble
language of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
redesignation request and approval of the associated maintenance plan
and 2002 base-year inventory.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0917 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
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-R03-OAR-
2006-0917. 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 http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means 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 EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, 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. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, 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 electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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 http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 12, 2007, (72 FR 18434), EPA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing the approval and
promulgation of Virginia's redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the
associated maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory. In the
preamble of this document, EPA inadvertently printed the incorrect data
in Table 5 (titled: Total NOX Emissions for 2005-2018
(tpd)). This action corrects Table 5 in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, so that it reflects the correct NOX emissions
for the Richmond-Petersburg Area for 2005-2018.

Correction

    In rule document E7-7018, on page 18442, Table 5 is corrected to
read as follows:

                                Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions for 2005-2018 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2005 NOX        2011 NOX        2018 NOX
                         Source category                             emissions       emissions       emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................          77.281          84.296          90.521
Area \1\........................................................          26.501          27.417          28.169
Mobile \2\......................................................          67.155          43.661          26.827
Non-road........................................................          16.862          13.118           8.641
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         187.799         168.492         154.158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes selected local controls (open burning).
\2\ Includes transportation provisions.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also 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,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior
existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure
to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,
when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP
submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order. This proposed rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to
the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E7-9010 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31136-31137]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0269]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA
Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 8, 2019 This collection involves the FAA Acquisition
Management System (FAAAMS) and information collected in response to
notices regarding FAA acquisitions. The information to be collected is
necessary to solicit, award, and administer contracts for supplies,
equipment, services, facilities, and real property to fulfill the FAA's
mission. This notice revises the background based on three overall
acquisition areas with applicable forms under each, and updates the
figures for ``Respondents'' and ``Estimated Total Annual Burden'' below
based on a revised assessment of the contractual workload.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk
Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Eckert by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0595.
    Title: FAA Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS).
    Form Numbers: Please see https://fast.faa.gov/Procurement_Forms.cfm
for all forms.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13987). No comments were received
in response to this Notice. The FAAAMS establishes policies and
internal procedures for FAA acquisition. Section 348 of Public Law 104-
50 directed FAA to establish an acquisition system. The information
collection is carried out as an integral part of FAA's acquisition
process. Various portions of the AMS describe information needed from
vendors seeking or already doing business with FAA. Our contracting
offices collect the information to plan, solicit, award, administer and
close individual contracts. Our small business office collects
information to promote and increase small business participation in FAA
contracts. AMS requires information collection through forms in the
following areas (specific information collected varies by the nature of
each form):
    IC-1 Market Surveys/Requests for Information--In the initial stage
of a procurement, these activities are used to identify products and
services available to meet FAA needs, as well as to obtain vendor
comments on draft requirements identified to satisfy an FAA need. The
information obtained is important in determining the acquisition
strategy in such areas as the evaluation criteria for competitive
proposals or whether to set the procurement aside for a particular size
of business.
    Total Number of Form Responses per Year--8,572.
    Average Burden Houses per Response--7.94.
    Annual Burden Hours--68,044.
    Forms:
    Business Declaration--collect information on business size of
prospective vendors.
    SF-330 Architect-Engineer Qualifications--collect information from
prospective architect-engineer firms on their qualifications.
    Interested Parties Form--used to publicize information on
prospective vendors for the purposes of subcontracting/teaming
opportunities.
    IC-2 Solicitations--In the next stage of a procurement, these
activities are used to evaluate proposals with vendor-specific
technical solutions, capabilities, and other qualifications such as
subcontracting plans that may result in the award of a contract for a
defined FAA need. The extent and nature of the information required
from vendors varies depending on the nature of the goods and/or
services procured, as well as the size and complexity of the FAA
requirements.
    Total Number of Form Responses per Year--28,798.
    Average Burden Houses per Response--20.93.
    Annual Burden Hours--602,732.
    Forms:
    SF-30--Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract--
communicate changes to FAA requirements to prospective vendors in
amendments.
    SF-252 Architect-Engineer Contract--award architect-engineer
contracts.
    SF-26--Award/Contract--award contracts.
    DOT 4220.34 Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money--vendors to
provide complete information on facilities' capital cost of money in
their cost proposals.
    DOT4220-.34--Contract Pricing Summary--vendors to provide a
complete summary of their costs in their cost proposal.
    SF-18/33/1447--Request for Quotations/Solicitation, Offer, and
Award/Solicitation/Contract--request contractor quotes/proposals.
    SF-1442 Solicitation, Offer, and Award--vendor responses to
construction, alteration, or repair solicitations.
    IC-3 Post-Award Contract Administration--Depending on the
complexity and size of the contract, various activities are ongoing
after contract award in areas such as bonds (e.g., for construction
contracts), small business subcontracting (e.g., applying to large
businesses), the tracking and management of Government Property, and
invoicing. Contract modifications vary from routine administrative
updates to major additions of work.
    Total Number of Form Responses per Year--110,336.
    Average Burden Hours per Response--2.36.
    Annual Burden Hours--249,918.5.
    Forms:
    SF-30 Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract--used for
contract modifications of all kinds.
    DOT 4220.4 Contractor's Release--contractor release of claims for a
matter under the contract.
    SF-1443--Contractor's Request for Progress Payments--contractor
request for payment based on a percentage of total cost or stage of
completion.
    Electronic Funds Transfer Waiver Request--contractor request for
exemption from electronic funds payment process.
    SF-1428--Inventory Schedule B/Continuation Sheet--contractor
inventory of Government Property.
    DOT 4220.42 Material Inspection and Receiving Report--contractor
invoice submittal.
    SF-25A--Payment Bond--required for certain construction contracts
as defined in the AMS.
    SF-25--Performance Bond Annual--where a performance bond is
appropriate for all covered contracts.
    SF-1439--Schedule of Accounting Information--for contractor
termination settlement proposal submittals.
    SF-1443--Statement and Acknowledgment--in construction contracts
for each subcontract awarded.
    Respondents: Contractors with an interest in or involved with FAA
Acquisitions: 9,240.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6.2.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 921,739 (any differences from
cumulative area information due to rounding).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24 2019.
Michelle G. Brune,
Division Manager, Acquisition Policy Division (AAP-100).
[FR Doc. 2019-13789 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54801-54803]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23731]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84488; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Derivative Securities Traded Under Unlisted Trading
Privileges

October 25, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 12, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 5740 related to
derivative securities traded under unlisted trading privileges
(``UTP'') to remove the requirement in Rule 5740(a)(1) for the Exchange
to file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) for each ``new derivative
securities product'' as defined in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act \3\
(``Derivative Security'') traded under UTP and renumber the remaining
provisions of Rule 5740(a) to maintain an organized rule structure. The
Exchange has designated this rule change as ``non-controversial'' under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and provided the Commission with the
notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 5740
related to derivative securities traded under UTP by removing the
requirement in Rule 5740(a)(1) for the Exchange to file with the
Commission a Form 19b-4(e) for each Derivative Security, and
renumbering the remaining rules of Rule 5740(a) to maintain an
organized rule structure, as described below.
    Rule 5740(a)(1) sets forth the requirement for Nasdaq to file with
the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) with respect to each Derivative Security
that is traded under UTP. However, Nasdaq believes that it should not
be necessary to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission if it begins
trading a Derivative Security on a UTP basis, because Rule 19b-4(e)(1)
under the Act refers to the ``listing and trading'' of a ``new
derivative securities product.'' The Exchange believes that the
requirements of that rule refers to when an exchange lists and trades a
Derivative Security, and not when an exchange seeks only to trade such
product on a UTP basis pursuant to Rule 12f-2 under the Act.\6\
Therefore, Nasdaq proposes to delete the requirement in current Rule
5740(a)(1) for Nasdaq to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission with
respect to each Derivative Security it begins trading on a UTP basis.
In addition, as a result of the deletion of

current Rule 5740(a)(1) Nasdaq proposes to renumber current Rules
5740(a)(2)-(6), as Rules 5740(a)(1)-(5) respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.12f-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6(b) \7\ of the Act in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, eliminating the requirement to file a
Form 19b-4(e) for each Derivative Security the Exchange begins trading
on a UTP basis removes an unnecessary regulatory requirement thereby
providing for a more efficient process for adding Derivative Securities
to trading on the Exchange on a UTP basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that a substantially identical
proposed rule change by NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') was
recently approved by the Commission.\9\ In particular, the Commission
noted in the approval order that it ``believes that the filing of a
Form 19b-4(e) is not required when an Exchange is trading a new
derivative securities product on a UTP basis only'' \10\ and also found
that the NYSE National's proposed rule change is ``consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23968 (May 23, 2018) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NYSENAT-2018-02).
    \10\ See supra note 9 at page 23975 at footnote 149.
    \11\ See supra note 9 at page 23975-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the renumbering of current Rules 5740(a)(2)-(6) as
Rules 5740(a)(1)-(5), the Exchange believes that these changes are
consistent with the Act because they will allow the Exchange to
maintain a clear and organized rule structure, thus preventing investor
confusion.
    For these reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, removing the
requirement to file a Form 19b-4(e) will serve to enhance competition
by providing for the efficient addition of Derivative Securities for
trading under UTP on Nasdaq. To the extent that a competitor
marketplace believes that the proposed rule change places it at a
competitive disadvantage, it may file with the Commission a proposed
rule change to adopt the same or similar rule.
    In addition, the proposal to renumber the current Rules 5740(a)(2)-
(6) as Rules 5740(a)(1)-(5) does not impact competition in any respect
since it merely maintains a clear and organized rule structure.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal is similar to
a proposal the Commission has previously approved.\14\ Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the proposal raises no new or novel regulatory
issues and waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission
therefore waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-082 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-082. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All

submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-082 and should
be submitted on or before November 21, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23731 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76190-76191]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26995]

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

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: PR23-16-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: MBR Informational Filing to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20221206-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: PR23-17-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Keystone Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: MBR Informational Filing to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20221206-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1118-000.
    Applicants: MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC submits a Cost
and Revenue Study.
    Filed Date: 12/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20221206-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1121-000.
    Applicants: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LLC submits a
Cost and Revenue Study.
    Filed Date: 12/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20221206-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-270-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: MBR Informational Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20221206-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-271-000.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Fuel Summary 2022 to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20221207-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.

    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-249-001.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Substitute Tariff Record to be
effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20221206-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: December 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26995 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 70444]
[DOCID:fr04de06-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 17f-2(a), SEC File No. 270-34, OMB Control No. 3235-
0034.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 240.17f-2) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) requires that securities professionals be
fingerprinted. This requirement serves to identify security risk
personnel, to allow an employer to make fully informed employment
decisions, and to deter possible wrongdoers from seeking employment in
the securities industry. Partners, directors, officers, and employees
of exchanges, broker, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies
are included. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 respondents
will submit fingerprint cards. It is also estimated that each
respondent will submit 55 fingerprint cards. The staff estimates that
the average number of hours necessary to comply with the Rule 17f-2(a)
is one-half hour. The total burden is 275,000 hours for respondents.
The average cost per hour is approximately $50. Therefore, the total
cost of compliance for respondents is $13,750,000.
    Fingerprint cards submitted under Rule 17f-2(a) must be retained
for a period of not less than three years after termination of the
person's employment relationship with the organization. Submitting
fingerprint cards for all securities personnel is mandatory to obtain
the benefit of identifying security risk personnel, allowing an
employer to make fully informed employment decisions and deterring
possible wrongdoers from seeking employment in the securities industry.
Fingerprint cards submitted according to Rule 17f-2(a) will not be kept
confidential.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be
directed to the following persons: (i) David Rostker, Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or by sending
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 20, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20430 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 32 (Friday, February 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 11027]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4814-000]

Watterra Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On January 5, 2017, Watterra Energy, LLC 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 Tuttle Creek Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Tuttle Creek Project or project) to be located
at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Tuttle Creek Dam on the
Big Blue River in Manhattan County, Kansas. 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 all new
facilities: (1) An 18-foot-diameter, 800-foot-long steel penstock that
bifurcates into one 18-foot-diameter, 60-foot-long steel penstock
discharging into an existing stilling basin and one 18-foot-diameter,
250-foot-long steel penstock carrying flows to the project's
powerhouse; (2) a bifurcation structure located at the end of the 800-
foot-long penstock near an existing stilling basin; (3) a 70-foot-long,
55-foot-wide, 30-foot-high powerhouse located on the south side of the
stilling basin; (4) two horizontal Francis turbines each with an
installed capacity of 5.93 megawatts (MW) for a total capacity of 11.86
MW; (5) a single generator connected to the two Francis turbines; (6) a
8,200-foot-long, 12.7 kilovolt transmission line interconnecting to an
existing distribution system using an existing substation; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Tuttle
Creek Project would be 64,643 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Craig Dalton, 7100 Commercial Avenue, Suite
4, Billings, MT 59101; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: (406)
384-0080.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-6211.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14814-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14814) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 10, 2017.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03155 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11413]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

Vinyl Chloride

CFR Correction

0
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.1000 to End,
revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 81, in Sec.  1910.1017, paragraph
(n) is reinstated to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1017   Vinyl chloride.

* * * * *
    (n) The employer must, within 15 working days after the receipt of
the results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify each
affected employee of these results and the steps being taken to reduce
exposures within the permissible exposure limit either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to affected employees.

[FR Doc. 2018-05312 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D