[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26751-26752]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL22-52-000]

Elk Hill Solar 1, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On April 29, 2022, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL22-52-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Elk Hill Solar
1, LLC's proposed Rate Schedule \1\ is unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Elk Hill Solar
1, LLC, 179 FERC ] 61,070 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Elk Hill Solar 1, LLC, Rate Schedule Tariff, Rate Schedule
FERC No. 1, Reactive Power Compensation (0.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL22-52-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL22-52-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2021), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09652 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 26087-26088]
[DOCID:fr08my07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11291-023]

Star Mill, Inc.; Notice of Termination of License by Implied
Surrender

May 1, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been
initiated by the Commission:
    a. Proceeding Type: Termination of License by Implied Surrender.
    b. Project No: 11291-023.
    c. Date Initiated: October 18, 2006.
    d. Licensee: Star Mill, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Star Milling and Electric Minor Water Power
Project (Star Milling).
    f. Location: On Fawn River in LaGrange County, near the town of
Howe, Indiana.
    g. Proceeding Initiated Pursuant to: 18 CFR 6.4.
    h. FERC Contact: Diane M. Murray, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: June 1, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-11291-023)
on any comments.
    j. Description of Proceeding: Because of the licensee's failure to
live up to the obligations of its license, the Commission considers
this inaction an implied surrender of the license. By letter dated
October 18, 2006, the Commission gave the licensee notice of its intent
to accept the surrender of the license for the Star Milling Project.
    k. Locations of the Letter: A copy of the letter is available for
inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be

notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular proceeding.
    n. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'',
``PROTESTS'', or ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular proceeding to which the filing refers.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described proceeding. If an agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments.
    p. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web

site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8702 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16547-16548]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9649-9]

Radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Notice of Construction Approvals Issued

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Construction Approvals issued in
2011 by EPA Region 8 for the construction or modification of sources
subject to the Radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the Approvals or
this notice, contact Dr. Angelique Diaz at EPA by phone at: (303) 312-
6344, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>An electronic copy of
each Approval is available through the Internet and can be found at
www.epa.gov/region8/air.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The General Provisions to the Radionuclide NESHAP in 40 CFR part
61, subpart A, require a source owner or operator to submit an
application for approval of construction or modification, pursuant to
40 CFR 61.07. Sources submitting applications in 2010 and 2011
submitted them under this provision and include sources subject to 40
CFR part 61, subpart B, National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions
from Underground Uranium Mines (Subpart B) and 40 CFR part 61, subpart
W, National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Operating Mill
Tailings (Subpart W). EPA Region 8 issued three approvals in 2011 under
60 CFR 61.08. Today's notice comprises a summary of the three
approvals.
    The following summaries are for those Construction Approvals issued
by EPA Region 8 during the 2011 calendar year; each summary provides
the title of the Approval and a brief description. These summaries are
provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and
are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the Construction
Approval. This notice does not change the status of any document with
respect to whether it is ``of nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes
of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. For example, this notice
does not make the Construction Approval for a particular source into a
nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make any document that was
previously non-binding into a binding document.

Approval for Whirlwind Mine

    On August 4, 2011, the EPA issued a Construction Approval to Energy
Fuels for their Whirlwind Underground Uranium Mine. The mine is
regulated under 40 CFR part 61, subpart B. The mine is expected to
produce up to 50,000 tons per year of ore and over 100,000 tons over
the lifetime of the mine. The Whirlwind Mine is located at 30100 5/10
Road, Gateway, Colorado 81522. The Approval and background

document for the Approval are available on the Internet and can be
found at: http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/whirlwind.html.

Approval for Pi[ntilde]on Ridge

    On October 26, 2011, the EPA issued a Construction Approval to
Energy Fuels for Tailings Cell A and the Phase I Evaporation Ponds at
the proposed Pi[ntilde]on Ridge Uranium Mill. Tailings Cell A and the
Phase I Evaporation Ponds are regulated under 40 CFR part 61, subpart
W. The proposed Mill is situated in Montrose County, Colorado on an 880
acre private parcel, in Paradox Valley, approximately 12 miles west of
Naturita. The Approval and background document, as well as EPA's
response to public input, are available on the Internet and can be
found at: http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/pinonridge.html.

Approval for Lost Creek

    On December 20, 2011, the EPA issued a Construction Approval to Ur-
Energy USA Inc., for the two holding ponds at the proposed Lost Creek
In-Situ Recovery Project. The holding ponds at the Lost Creek facility
are subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart W. The proposed Lost Creek
facility is located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The Approval and
background document for the Approval are available on the Internet and
can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/lostcreek.html.

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

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Jonathan Edwards,
Acting Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2012-6585 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 10, 2008

SUBJECT:	Transmission of Background and Reference Materials and Charge
to the Panel for the December 2-5, 2008 Session of the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) Entitled “Scientific Issues Associated with
Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment”

FROM:		Tina Levine

				Division Director

				Health Effects Division

TO:		Sharlene Matten

		Designated Federal Official

		FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

				Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M)

The December 2-5, 2008 session of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) will discuss
issues related to the exposure assessment of reentry workers following
pesticide applications in agricultural settings, also known as
post-application farmworker exposure assessment.  At this meeting, the
Agency is seeking review, comment, and guidance from the Panel on three
issues related to the Agency’s post-application farmworker exposure
assessment methods.  These issues include:

Identification of reentry activities for the purposes of
post-application farmworker exposure assessment;

Grouping of similar reentry activities for post-application farmworker
exposure assessment purposes, including those considered no/low contact
activities where minimal exposure is expected; and,

Evaluation of workday duration in post-application farmworker exposure
assessment.

The remainder of this memorandum provides a detailed list of background
and key reference materials, which are outlined in Tables 1 and 2, and
the specific charge to the Panel.  These materials do not contain any
information protected under statute as Confidential Business Information
(CBI), nor do they contain any materials protected by copyright.  These
materials do contain information protected from disclosure to foreign
and multi-national pesticide producers under FIFRA Section 10(g).

Background and Reference Materials

Table 1:  December 2-5, 2008 FIFRA SAP Background Materials

Background Document	File Name	Author	Indicate Whether FIFRA 10(g) or ©
Protected

Scientific Issues Associated with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment
U.S. EPA (2008)_FIFRA SAP_Worker Reentry.pdf	EPA

	Exhibit A	Exhibit A_TC Calculation Example_ARF024.xls	EPA

	Exhibit B	Exhibit B_TC Calculation Example_ARF024.pdf	EPA	10(g)

Exhibit C	Exhibit C_Crop-Activity Combinations.xls	EPA

	Exhibit D	Exhibit D_ARTF TC Data Summary.xls	EPA

	Exhibit E	Exhibit E_ARTF Grower Survey_Workday Duration Summary.xls	EPA

	Exhibit F	Exhibit F_TC Cluster OH_Mixed-Model Analysis.doc	EPA

Exhibit_F_TC_Case_Study.sas7bdat	EPA

	Development of the ARTF Transfer Coefficient Database	Bruce and
Korpalski (2008) Development of ARTF TC Database.pdf	ARTF

Table 2:  December 2-5, 2008 FIFRA SAP Reference Materials

Reference Document	File Name	Indicate Whether FIFRA 10(g) or ©
Protected

ARTF (1996). Agricultural Reentry Activities and Pesticide Exposures In
The United States and Canada:  Results of Crop Production Experts. Doane
Marketing Research, Inc.	ARTF (1996)_ARTF Expert Survey.pdf	10(g)

	ARTF (1996)_ARTF Expert Survey_List of Experts.pdf

	ARTF (1996), Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Reentry
Workers During <Activity> in <Crop>, A generic protocol for conduct of
post-application exposure studies	ARTF (1996)_Generic Reentry
Protocol.pdf	10(g)

ARTF, Use of Generic TCs to Evaluate Worker Safety – A Brief Summary
of the Approach, Provided by ARTF, LLC., March, 2008	ARTF (2008)_Use of
Generic TCs.pdf

	Baugher, D.G. (2006), Penetration of Clothing by Dislodgeable Foliar
Residues of Pesticides during Agricultural Occupational Reentry, ARTF,
LLC; February 22, 2006.  (MRID 46789302)	Baugher, D.G. (2006)_Clothing
Penetration.pdf	10(g)

Bruce, E. and Artz, S. (2001), Technical Issues and Procedures for
Handling Data from Agricultural Reentry Studies Purchased by ARTF, ARTF,
LLC; August 28, 2001.  (MRID 45491905)	Bruce, E. and Artz, S.
(2001)_TechIssues ARTF Purchased Data.pdf	10(g)

Bruce, E. (2002), Evaluation of Dislodgeable Foliar Residue Techniques,
Statistical Distributions, and Initial Residues, ARTF Study No. ARF054,
January, 2002.  (MRID 45574001)	Bruce, E. (2002)_DFR
Technique-Distribution-Initial Residues.pdf	10(g)

Bruce, E., Holden, L. and Korpalski, S. (2003). Transfer Coefficient:  A
Generic Tool for Estimating Pesticide Exposure to Agricultural Workers
Who Re-Enter Treated Crops, ARTF LLC; June 27, 2003.  (MRID 46040301)
Bruce, E., et al (2003)_Genericness Report.pdf	10(g)

Bruce, E., Holden, L. and Korpalski, S., (2006). Reissued Report:
Agricultural Reentry Task Force Transfer Coefficient Database: A Summary
of its Development and Use, ARTF LLC, January 13, 2006.  (MRID 46734002)
Bruce, E., et al (2006)_REISSUE_ARTF TC Database Report.pdf	10(g)

	Bruce, E., et al (2003)_ARTF TC Database Report.pdf	10(g)

Nigg, H.N., et al (1984).  The Development and Use of a Universal Model
to Predict Tree Crop Harvester Pesticide Exposure.  Journal of the
American Industrial Hygiene Association 45:  182-186.	Nigg, H.N.
(1984)_Model Predict Harv Exp.pdf

	PMRA & U.S. EPA. (1997). Workshop On Post-application Exposure
Assessment – Final Report.	PMRA & U.S.EPA (1997) Joint PMRA EPA
Workshop On Postapplication Exposure Assessment.pdf

	Popendorf, W (1980).  Exploring Citrus Harvesters’ Exposure to
Pesticide Contaminated Foliar Dust, Am. Industr. Hygiene Assoc. J.
41:652-659.	Popendorf, W (1980)_Exploring Citrus Harvesters.pdf

	Ross, J. (2001). Peer Review Summary Report and ARTF Response to Peer
Review Comments, ARTF Peer Review Panel, August, 2001.  (MRID 45491903)
Ross, J. (2001)_Peer Review Report.pdf	10(g)

Ross, J., Driver, J., Lunchick, C., Wible, C., and Selman, F. (2006).
Pesticide Exposure Monitoring Databases in Applied Risk Analysis.  Arch.
Envir. Contam. Tox., v. 186, pp. 107-132	Ross, J., et al
(2006)_Pesticide Exposure Monitoring D-Bases.pdf

	Thompson, R. (1998). Agricultural Worker Crop Contact from Reentry
Activities Performed in the USA and Canada: Grower Results, Doane
Marketing Research, Inc., MRID 44802601	Thompson, R., (1998)_ARTF Grower
Survey.pdf	10(g)

	Korpalski, S., and Bruce, E., (2000)_ADDENDUM_ARTF Grower Survey.pdf
10(g)

U.S. EPA (1980). Minutes of FIFRA SAP Subcommittee Meeting (February
21/22, 1980) Signed by Assistant Executive Anthony Inglis.	U.S.EPA
(1980)_FIFRA SAP Subcommittee Review.pdf

	U.S. EPA (1981). Informal Review of Draft Proposed Pesticide
Registration Guidelines, Subpart K:  Exposure Data Requirements: Reentry
Protection (May 13/14, 1981), Signed by Executive Secretary Philip H.
Gray, Jr.	U.S.EPA (1981)_FIFRA SAP Informal Review.pdf

	U.S. EPA (1984).  Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision K –
Exposure: Reentry Protection [NTIS Document Number PB85-120962]
U.S.EPA (1984 & 1986a)_SubdivisionsU&K.pdf

	U.S.EPA (1986a). Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision U –
Applicator Exposure Monitoring [NTIS Document Number PB87-133286
(October, 1986)]

U.S. EPA (1986b). Transmittal of the Final FIFRA Science Advisory Panel
(SAP) Reports on the February 11-12, 1986 Meeting	U.S. EPA (1986b)_
FIFRA SAP Minutes.pdf

	U.S. EPA (1989). Good Laboratory Practices (40CFR160)	U.S.EPA
(1989)_GLPs40CFR160.htm

	U.S. EPA (1994). Breakout Summary Report For Workshop On The Revisions
To Subdivision K Post-Application Exposure Guidelines (April 14-15,
1994)	U.S.EPA (1994)_WorkshopSummary.pdf

	U.S. EPA (1995). Data Call-In Notice For Post-Application Exposure Data
U.S.EPA (1995)_ReentryDataCall-In.pdf

	U.S. EPA (2000). Science Advisory Council For Exposure Policy 3.1,
Agricultural Transfer Coefficients (Original 5/7/98 revised 8/7/2000)
U.S. EPA (2000)_Policy003.1.AgriculturalTransferCoefficients.pdf

	U.S. EPA, (1993). Pesticide Rejection Rate Analysis: Occupational and
Residential Exposure:  [EPA Document 738-R-93-008]	U.S.EPA
(2003)_RejectionRateAnalysis.pdf

Charge to the Panel

TOPIC A:  Crop-Activity Grouping/Clustering

In 1995, the Agency issued a data call-in (DCI) notice requiring the
development of information on the exposure potential associated with
labor activities in agriculture which occur in previously treated areas
(e.g., harvesting).  The central premise in the development and
collection of such exposure monitoring data is that activities which
exhibit similar magnitudes and patterns of exposure can be grouped
together for exposure assessment purposes.  It would also follow that
crop-activity combinations not actually monitored, but that were similar
from both ergonomic and agronomic perspectives, can be represented by
those that were monitored.  Based on this premise, the Agency has
identified several key factors for consideration by the Panel.  They
include the identification of labor activities in agriculture,
evaluation of the possible grouping approaches for similar crop-activity
combinations, and categorization of certain activities as no/low contact
in the Agency’s Worker Protection Standard (40CFR170).  Specifically,
the Agency identified the following issues for the Panel to consider:

Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the approaches and
data sources used to identify the universe of hand labor activities for
exposure assessment purposes.  Please identify any activities that EPA
has not listed for the crops included in the scope of the DCI.

The ARTF has recommended various crop-activities be grouped together or
clustered for the purposes of estimating exposure and has proposed and
conducted or purchased one or more exposure monitoring studies to be
used to represent each cluster.  The regulatory agencies also agree with
the concept of clustering like crop-activity combinations for this
purpose.  Please comment on the following:

The methods used by ARTF for the purposes of creating clusters for
exposure assessment purposes.

Statistical, agronomic, or other support for or against (1) the
ARTF-proposed clusters; (2) the Agency evaluation of the ARTF-proposed
clusters, and (3) the Agency-suggested alternative cluster schemes
outlined below.  Please include the rationale and reasoning for any
Panel-recommended changes or modifications.  The SAP Review Code in the
list refers to Table 3 below, which provides a summary of the ARTF
clusters, the Agency-suggested alternatives, and relevant page numbers
in the Agency’s background document.

Hairy Leaf Field Crops (clusters HH, HHt, and HS) [SAP Review Code A]

Smooth-leaf Field Crops (clusters SH, SSR, SSS, SW and Sx) [SAP Review
Code B]

Waxy-leaf Field Crops (clusters WIH, WIS, and Wm) [SAP Review Code C]

Orchard Crops

Cluster OH and the Agency suggestion for a separate cluster for thinning
[SAP Review Code D-1]

Clusters OHn and OW crop [SAP Review Codes D-2 and D-4]

Cluster OP [SAP Review Code E-3]

Trellis Crops

Cluster THb [SAP Review Code E-1]

Cluster THg and the Agency suggestions to further separate into clusters
for hand harvesting wine grapes (THwg) and table/raisin grapes (THtg) as
well as utilizing the hand harvesting table/raisin grape cluster to
represent girdling [SAP Review Code E-2]

Cluster TP and the Agency suggestion to group with cluster OP (as shown
in Figure 31 of the Agency’s background document) [SAP Review Code
E-3]

Cluster Tx [SAP Review Code E-4]

Greenhouse and Nursery Crops

Clusters GHf and GHv [SAP Review Code F-1]

Cluster GN and the Agency suggestion to have an additional cluster for
hand-harvesting nursery crops (GHn) [SAP Review Code F-2]

Crop Irrigation (cluster I) [SAP Review Code G]

Mechanical Harvesting Cotton (clusters CHp, CHm, and CHt) [SAP Review
Code H]

Turf (clusters DH and DM) [SAP Review Code I]

Table 3:  Reference Table for Charge Question 2 (b)

ARTF Study	ARTF Proposal	Agency Proposal	SAP Review Code	Page No.

Category/ Study Code	Crop	Activity	Cluster Code	Description	Summary of
Agency Review of ARTF Proposal	Cluster Code

Hairy-leaf, Field Crop Clusters

ARF045	Cucumbers	Hand Harvesting	HH	Hairy-leaf field crops:  hand
harvesting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	HH	A	54-59

ARF049	Summer Squash	Hand Harvesting

ARF024	Tobacco	Hand harvesting	HHt	Hairy-leaf (Tobacco):  hand
harvesting and canopy management	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal
HHt

ARF022	Sunflowers	Scouting	HS	Hairy-leaf field crops:  scouting and
similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	HS

Smooth-leaf, Field Crop Clusters

ARF051	Tomato	Tying	SH	Smooth-leaf field crops:  hand harvesting and
tying	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	SH	B	50-54

AR1001	Strawberry	Hand Harvesting

AR1023	Tomato	Hand Harvesting

AR1024	Strawberry	Hand Harvesting

AR1025	Cotton	Scouting	SSr	Smooth-leaf field crops:  scouting in row
conditions	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	SSr

AR1027	Tomato	Scouting

ARF009	Corn	Scouting	SSs	Smooth-leaf field crops:  scouting in solid
stand conditions	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	SSs

ARF021	Dry Pea	Scouting

AR1006	Cotton	Hand weeding	SW	Smooth-leaf field crops:  hand weeding,
thinning, and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	SW

AR1018	Cotton	Hand weeding

AR1019	Dry Pea	Hand weeding

ARF010	Sweet Corn	Hand harvesting	Sx	Smooth-leaf field crops:  intense
contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	Sx

Waxy-leaf, Field Crop Clusters

ARF050	Cabbage	Hand harvesting	WIH	Waxy-leaf field crops, low height:
hand harvesting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with
ARTF's proposal	WIH	C	59-61

AR1008	Cauliflower	Scouting	WIS 	Waxy-leaf field crops, low height:
scouting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	WIS

ARF011	Cauliflower	Scouting	Wm	Waxy-leaf field crops, medium height:
all activities, plus full foliage weeding	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	Wm

ARF012	Cauliflower	Hand harvesting

ARF037	Cabbage	Hand weeding

Orchard Crop Clusters

ARF025	Apples	Hand Harvesting	OH	Orchard crops:  hand harvesting and
similar contact activities	The Agency generally concurs with ARTF's
proposal.  However, one potential alteration to the proposed crop
grouping could be an additional cluster for orchard crop thinning.  The
Agency believes this activity may be more contact-intensive and
therefore could be considered separately in exposure assessments.
Possibly create a separate cluster for orchard crop thinning	D-1	63-69

ARF028	Oranges 	Hand Harvesting

ARF041	Oranges 	Hand Harvesting

ARF042	Grapefruit	Hand Harvesting

AR1002	Peaches	Hand Harvesting

AR1003	Apples	Thinning

AR1014	Peaches	Hand Harvesting

AR1021	Peaches	Hand Harvesting

AR1016	Almonds	Mechanical Harvesting	OHn	Orchard crops:  mechanically
harvesting nuts	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	OHn	D-2

	ARF033	Olives	Hand Pruning	OP	Orchard crops:  hand pruning, scouting,
and similar contact activities	See Agency review comment for ARTF
Proposal for Cluster TP	See OP/TP	See E-3

	ARF047	Apples	Hand Pruning

AR1017	Peaches	Propping	OW	Orchard crops:  hand weeding and similar
contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	OW	D-4

	Trellis Crop Clusters

ARF020	Blackberries	Hand harvesting	THb	Trellis crops:  hand harvesting
caneberries and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with
ARTF's proposal	THb	E-1	69-76

ARF048	Juice/Wine Grapes	Hand harvesting	THg	Trellis crops:  hand
harvesting grapes and similar contact activities	The Agency is
considering to further separate the THg cluster by having separate
transfer coefficients for hand harvesting wine grapes and table/raisin
grapes, respectively.  The Agency also proposes to utilize the revised
THtg cluster to represent girdling.	THwg	E-2

	AR1020	Table / Raisin Grapes	Hand harvesting

THtg

AR1022	Table / Raisin Grapes	Hand harvesting

ARF023	Table / Raisin Grapes	Scouting	TP	Trellis crops:  hand pruning,
scouting, and similar contact activities	The Agency is considering
combining similar activities conducted in trellises and orchards.  The
respective ARTF-proposed clusters OP and TP, representing activities
such as scouting and hand pruning, are very similar because shears or
other devices would be used which preclude some level of contact with
the treated plants.  Also, corresponding to Review Code E-2, girdling
would be removed from this cluster.	OP/TP	E-3

	AR1015	Table / Raisin Grapes	Cane turning	Tx	Trellis crops:  intense
contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	Tx	E-4

	Greenhouse and Nursery Crop Clusters

ARF055	Solidasters, Snapdragons, Lillies	Hand Harvesting	GHf	Greenhouse
and nursery floriculture hand harvesting:  all flowers and methods	The
Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	GHf	F-1	40-45

ARF020	Blackberries	Hand Harvesting	GHv	Greenhouse vegetables: hand
harvesting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	GHv

ARF051	Tomatoes, fresh	Tying

ARF039	Chrysanthe-mums	Pinching	GN	Greenhouse and nursery crops:  all
activities	The Agency generally concurs with ARTF's proposal.  However,
the Agency believes that there could be support for additional
separation of hand harvesting nursery crops from other nursery crop
activities.	GN	F-2

	ARF043	Nursery Stock Citrus Trees	Hand Pruning

ARF044	Nursery Stock Citrus Trees	Hand Harvesting

All crops:  transplanting

GHn

Crop Irrigation Cluster

ARF036	Potatoes	Irrigation	I	Irrigation, any crop where hand line is
possible	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	I	G	78-80

Mechanical Harvesting Cotton Clusters

AR1004	Cotton	Mechanical Harvesting	CHp	Cotton, mechanical harvesting:
picker operator and raker (based on boll residues)	The Agency concurs
with ARTF's proposal	CHp	H	61-63

	CHm	Cotton, mechanical harvesting:  module builder operator (based on
boll residues)	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	CHm

	CHt	Cotton, mechanical harvesting:  tramper (based on boll residues)
The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	CHt

Turf Clusters

ARF035	Sod	Mechanical Harvesting	DH	Sod:  mechanical harvesting,
scouting, transplanting, and hand weeding	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	DH	I	76-78

ARF057	Golf Course Turf	Maintenance	DM	Golf courses:  maintenance
activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	DM

As indicated in the background document, the Agency recognizes the
limitations associated with using certain statistical tests (such as the
nonparametric Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests) to provide a broad
rationale for the separation or combination of studies to form clusters.
 Specifically, these tests do not adequately account for or consider a
number of complex features of the data such as repeated measurements on
the same worker and nesting.   Again, as stated in the text, a
mixed-model approach that incorporates the hierarchical nature of the
data is likely to be more appropriate and to more definitively address
the issues of interest regarding the degree to which specified
crop-activity combinations might be combined.  In Exhibit F, the Agency
provides a case study example of this alternate (mixed model) approach
for determining reasonable groupings of transfer coefficients (TCs) from
exposure studies involving various crop activities thought to be
ergonomically and/or agronomically similar.

The Agency believes the proposed approach illustrated in Exhibit F uses
more appropriate statistical and quantitative procedures for determining
which exposure monitoring studies can or should be combined.  Please
discuss thoughts and/or concerns with the analytical approach outlined
in Exhibit F and on the annotated SAS code provided as an attachment to
Exhibit F.  Please provide feedback on the results of the case study
which indicates that it would not be inappropriate to consider TC values
associated with hand harvesting activities in orchards to be distinct
from TC values associated with hand thinning activities in orchards (see
SAP Review Code D-1 in Table 3 above and Figure 25 in the Agency’s
background document).

Please comment on the classification of crop-activity combinations in
Agency Exhibit C, identified with a cluster code of “No TC”, as
involving no or very low exposure.  Please identify any crop-activity
combinations classified as “No TC” in Exhibit C which should be
categorized differently because of their associated exposure potential.
Likewise, please identify any combinations which should be categorized
as “No TC” which are currently included in other clusters.  Please
explain the basis for any such recommendations.

TOPIC B:  Workday Duration

The Agency discussed its methodology for assessing post-application
exposures with an emphasis on the workday duration input.  A central
tendency value of 8 hours per day is typically used by the Agency.  The
data also show, as seen in several sources, certain portions of the
population work longer over the course of a day (e.g., 10 or 12 hours).
However, the Agency believes that, in most cases, employing a central
tendency estimate of 8 hours per day yields an appropriately protective
estimate of risk because of the combined impact of several other inputs
in the exposure and risk assessment process.  Specifically, the
following issues have been identified for the Panel to consider:

Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the data sources used
to quantify the duration of a workday for farmworkers, as well as any
additional sources of information that could be used for the analysis of
farmworker workday duration.  If any are identified, please comment on
the possible impacts they might have on the results of the analysis
conducted by the Agency.

Please comment on the Agency’s conclusion that using 8 hours per day
for exposure assessment purposes and given the conservativeness of the
other inputs results in estimates of farmworker exposures at the high
end of the distribution of actual multi-day exposures.  To the extent
that the Panel believes that this is not the case, please suggest
alternative approaches.

Please comment on whether the Agency’s approach to single-day exposure
assessments results in farmworker exposure estimates that fall in the
high end of the distribution of actual single day exposures.  To the
extent the Panel thinks that is not the case, please suggest alternative
approaches that may generate such estimates.

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  12

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  12

Page   PAGE  11  of   NUMPAGES  12


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81684-81685]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32650]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Securities Act of 1933, Release No. 33-9168/December 22, 2010;
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-63596/December 22,
2010]

Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Budget
and Annual Accounting Support Fee for Calendar Year 2011

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley
Act''), established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(``PCAOB'') to oversee the audits of companies that are subject to the
securities laws, and related matters, in order to protect the interests
of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of
informative, accurate and independent audit reports. The PCAOB is to
accomplish these goals through registration of public accounting firms
and standard setting, inspection, and disciplinary programs. The PCAOB
is subject to the comprehensive oversight of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').
    Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides that the PCAOB shall
establish a reasonable annual accounting support fee, as may be
necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain the PCAOB. Under
Section 109(f) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the aggregate annual
accounting support fee shall not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate
``recoverable budget expenses,'' which may include operating, capital
and accrued items. The Commission must approve the PCAOB's annual
budget and accounting support fee.
    Section 982 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') \1\ amended the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act to provide the PCAOB with explicit authority to oversee auditors of
broker-dealers registered with the Commission. In addition, the PCAOB
must allocate the annual accounting support fee among issuers and among
brokers and dealers, beginning in 2011. The 2011 budget approved and
submitted by the Board includes an allocation of the annual accounting
support fee among issuers and brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directs the PCAOB to
establish a budget for each fiscal year in accordance with the PCAOB's
internal procedures, subject to approval by the Commission. The
Commission's Rules of Practice related to its Informal and Other
Procedures include a rule that facilitates the Commission's review and
approval of PCAOB budgets and the annual accounting support fee.\2\
This budget rule provides, among other things, a timetable for the
preparation and submission of the PCAOB budget and for Commission
actions related to each budget, a description of the information that
should be included in each budget submission, limits on the PCAOB's
ability to incur expenses and obligations except as provided in the
approved budget, procedures relating to supplemental budget requests,
requirements for the PCAOB to furnish on a quarterly basis certain
budget-related information, and a list of definitions that apply to the
rule and to general discussions of PCAOB budget matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 202.190. See Release No. 33-8724 (July 18, 2006) [71
FR 41998 (July 24, 2006)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the budget rule, in March 2010 the PCAOB
provided the Commission with a narrative description of its program
issues and outlook for the 2011 budget year. In response, the
Commission provided the PCAOB with economic assumptions and budgetary
guidance for the 2011 budget year. The PCAOB subsequently delivered a
preliminary budget and budget justification to the Commission. Staff
from the Commission's Offices of the Chief Accountant and Executive
Director dedicated a substantial amount of time to the review and
analysis of the PCAOB's programs, projects and budget estimates;
reviewed the PCAOB's estimates of 2010 actual spending; and attended
several meetings with management and staff of the PCAOB to further
develop an understanding of the PCAOB's budget and operations. During
the course of this review, Commission staff relied upon representations
and supporting documentation from the PCAOB. Based on this review, the
Commission issued a ``pass back'' letter

to the PCAOB. The PCAOB approved its 2011 budget during an open meeting
on November 23, 2010 and submitted that budget for Commission approval
on November 29, 2010.
    After considering the above, the Commission did not identify any
proposed disbursements in the 2011 budget adopted by the PCAOB that are
not properly recoverable through the annual accounting support fee, and
the Commission believes that the aggregate proposed 2011 annual
accounting support fees do not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate recoverable
budget expenses for 2011. The Commission looks forward to the PCAOB's
annual updating of its strategic plan and the opportunity for the
Commission to review and provide views to the PCAOB on a draft of the
updated plan.
    In its role as the oversight body of the PCAOB, the Commission is
aware of the various uncertainties the PCAOB faces with respect to
budgeting its resources and the potential impact if actual experience
deviates from budget assumptions. Further, the Commission believes that
the 2011 budget approved and submitted by the Board provides sufficient
resources and flexibility for the PCAOB to continue to fulfill its
mandate and to respond to changes in the assumptions upon which the
budget is based. Should the PCAOB find the need to reallocate
resources, the PCAOB should work closely with Commission staff on
whether any reprogramming efforts result in the need for a supplemental
budget request under the Commission's budget rule. In considering any
reallocation that may be necessary in 2011, the Commission encourages
the Board to identify expenditures in its 2011 budget where flexibility
exists.
    As part of its review of the PCAOB's 2011 budget, the Commission
notes that there are certain budget-related matters that should be
addressed or more closely monitored during 2011 related to: (1) The
PCAOB's inspections program; (2) its information technology programs;
and (3) the impact of implementing legislative and other actions on the
PCAOB. Accordingly, the Commission directs the PCAOB during the 2011
budget cycle to:
    (1) Continue to include in its quarterly reports to the Commission
information about the PCAOB's inspections program. Such information
will include (a) statistics relative to the numbers and types of firms
budgeted and expected to be inspected in 2011, including by location
and by year the inspections that are required to be conducted in
accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and PCAOB rules, (b) information
about the timing of the issuance of inspections reports for domestic
and non-U.S. inspections, and (c) updates on the PCAOB's efforts to
establish cooperative arrangements with respective non-U.S. authorities
for inspections required in those countries.
    (2) Continue to include detailed information about the state of the
PCAOB's information technology in its quarterly reports to the
Commission, including planned, estimated, and actual costs for
information technology projects. Such information should also include
project plans, life cycle costs and progress, and provide an indication
of the level and nature of involvement of consultants.
    (3) Consult with the Commission about the PCAOB's plans for
implementing changes in response to legislative actions, advisory
committees, or consultant reports.
    The Commission has determined that the PCAOB's 2011 budget and
annual accounting support fee are consistent with Section 109 of the
Act. Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, that the PCAOB
budget and annual accounting support fee for calendar year 2011 are
approved.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32650 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


35207 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 113 / Thursday, June 12, 2003 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Compliance Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests June 6, 2003. Take notice that the following report has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. Filing Type: Recreation Plan Update. b. Project No: 2459   140. c. Date Filed: March 28, 2003. d. Applicant: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC ( AE). e. Name of Project: Lake Lynn Hydroelectric Project. f. Location: On the Cheat River, in Monongalia County, West Virginia, and Fayette County, Pennsylvania. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. 791( a)   825( r). h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Charles L. Simon, 4350 Northern Pike, Monroeville, PA 15146   2841. Phone: ( 412) 858   1675. i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Shana High at ( 202) 502   8674 or shana. high@ ferc. gov. j. Deadline for filing comments and/ or motions: July 7, 2003. All documents ( original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number ( 2459   140) on any comments or motions filed. k. Description of Proposal: AE developed an Updated Recreation Plan ( plan) to comply with article 417 of the project license. The plan was prepared following an evaluation of facility usage data and addresses recreation use as well as the adequacy of facilities. Specifically, the update addresses safety and security, navigational problems, swimming use, user demand patterns for boating use, primitive camping, and privileged permit leases. AE states that the current recreational facilities are meeting the demonstrated demand for recreation at the project and no changes are proposed in the update. l. Locations of the Application: This filing is available for review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling ( 202) 502   8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ ferc. gov or call toll free 1   866   208   3676, or for TTY, contact ( 202) 502   8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item ( h) above. m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene   Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents   Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title `` COMMENTS'', `` RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', `` PROTEST'', OR `` MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. o. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. p. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http:// www. ferc. gov under the `` e Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   14892 Filed 6   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ Project No. 12033   001]

Symbiotics, LLC.; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit June 6, 2003. Take notice that Symbiotics, LLC, permittee for the proposed Helena Valley Hydroelectric Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on November 6, 2001, and would have expired on October 31, 2004. The project would have been located on Ten Mile Creek in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. The permittee filed the request on April 30, 2003, and the preliminary permit for Project No. 12033 shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case the permit shall remain in effect through the first business day following that day. New applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR part 4, may be filed on the next business day.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   14891 Filed 6   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA   2003   0018; FRL   7512   3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mercury, ICR Number 0113.08, OMB Number 2060   0097 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NESHAP for Mercury, OMB Control Number 2060   0097, EPA ICR Number 0113.08. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 15 Jun 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNN1. SGM 12JNN1 35208 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 113 / Thursday, June 12, 2003 / Notices DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 14, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, ( Mail Code 2223A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   4113; fax number: ( 202) 564   0050; E mail address: williams. learia@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 60672), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA   2003   0018, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is: ( 202) 566   1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by E mail to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comment, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be available for public viewing in EDOCKET, as EPA receives them without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information ( CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NESHAP for Mercury ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart E) OMB Control Number 2060   0097, EPA ICR Number 0113.08. This is a request to renew an existing, approved collection that is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The NESHAP for Mercury, published at 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, were proposed on December 7, 1971, promulgated on April 6, 1973, and amended on October 14, 1975 and March 19, 1987. These standards apply to all stationary sources which process mercury ore to recover mercury, use mercury chlor alkali cells to produce chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide, and incinerate or dry wastewater treatment plant sludge. Approximately 107 sources ( 100 sludge incineration and drying plants and seven mercurycell chlor alkali plants) are currently subject to the standard; and no additional sources are expected to become subject to the standard in the next three years. Mercury is the pollutant regulated under this standard. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart E. Owners or operators of affected facilities described must make the following one time only reports: Notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test. These facilities must also maintain records of performance test results, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. In order to ensure compliance with the standards, adequate recordkeeping and reporting is necessary. This information enables the Agency to: ( 1) Identify the sources subject to the standard; ( 2) ensure initial compliance with emission limits; and ( 3) verify continuous compliance with the standard. A written report of each period for which hourly monitored parameters fall outside their established limits is required semiannually for mercury cell chlor alkali facilities. Reporting and recordkeeping is mandatory under section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 40 CFR part 61. Records of emission test results and other data needed to determine total emissions will be maintained at the source and made available for inspection for a minimum of two years. 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 OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 156 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Stationary Mercury processing facilities. Estimated Number of Respondents: 107. Frequency of Response: Annually, Semiannually, and initially. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 17,818.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 15 Jun 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNN1. SGM 12JNN1 35209 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 113 / Thursday, June 12, 2003 / Notices Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 0 includes $ 0 annualized capital or O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 8,686 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources. We have determined that the number of sources currently subject to this standard has decreased based on the most recent data available on the Air Facility System database for NESHAP respondent cost is due to a labor rate change where the rate was increased; however, the total overall cost is reduced due to the smaller number of sources covered by the rule.

Dated: June 5, 2003. Doreen Sterling, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   14874 Filed 6   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA   2003   0048; FRL   7512   2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1060.12 ( OMB No. 2060   0038) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels ( Renewal). This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 14, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mari ´ a Malave ´ , Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Mail Code 2223A, Office of Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   7027; fax number: ( 202) 564   0050; e mail address: malave. maria@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 60672), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA   2003   0048, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566   1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to OMB and EPA within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, and ( 2) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels ( 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa) ( Renewal) ( OMB Control Number 2060   0038, EPA ICR Number 1060.12). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for electric arc furnaces were proposed on October 21, 1974 ( 39 FR 37466) and promulgated on September 23, 1975 ( 40 CFR 43850). These standards apply to the following affected facilities in steel plants that produce carbon, alloy, or specialty steels: Electric arc furnaces ( EAFs) and dust handling systems commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal and on or before August 17, 1983. A review of subpart AA in 1980 resulted in the promulgation of a new standard ( NSPS, subpart AAa). The review of NSPS subpart AA found that fugitive emissions capture technology had improved since promulgation of NSPS subpart AA, and that argonoxygen decarburization ( AOD) vessels are a significant source of particulates in specialty steel shops. NSPS, subpart AAa was proposed on August 17, 1983 and promulgated on October 31, 1984. The new standard established new standards applicable to EAFs, AOD vessels, and dust handling systems constructed, modified, or reconstructed after August 17, 1983. On March 2, 1999, the Agency promulgated a direct final rule to amend subparts AA and AAa in response to a petition made by the Common Sense Initiative Council, established under a charter approved pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA), which approved daily visible emissions observations as an alternative to static pressure monitoring at an EAF with a VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 15 Jun 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNN1. SGM 12JNN1


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 21388]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9489]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-14]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petitions or their final disposition.

DATES: Comments on these petitions must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0743 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka L. Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Ralen Gao,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2009-0743.
    Petitioner: US Airways, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  60.17(c)(ii) and 60.31.
    Description of Relief Sought:
    US Airways, Inc. (US Airways), seeks relief from Sec. Sec.
60.17(c)(ii) and 60.31 to allow US Airways to re-qualify the DCH-8-300
flight simulator with FAA ID 423, utilizing FAA Advisory Circular 120-
40B.

[FR Doc. 2010-9489 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P