[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79556-79557]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0420]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association (SC&RA) Exemption; FAST Act Extension of Expiration Date

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

ACTION: Notice; extension of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the extension of the 2015 exemption granted to
the Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association (SC&RA) for the
transportation of loads that exceed normal weight and dimensional
limits. The exemption applies to all oversize-overweight permitted
loads whose drivers are not required to comply with the 30-minute rest
break rule. The Agency extends the expiration date to June 17, 2020, in
response to section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the ``Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act'' (FAST Act). That section extends the expiration
date of hours-of-service (HOS) exemptions in effect on the date of
enactment of the FAST Act to 5 years

from the date of issuance of the exemptions. The SC&RA exemption from
the Agency's 30-minute rest break requirement is limited to drivers of
specialized loads moving in interstate commerce that exceed normal
weight and dimension limits--oversize/overweight (OS/OW) loads--and
require a permit issued by a government authority. The Agency
previously determined that the drivers of specialized commercial motor
vehicles (CMV) under this exemption would likely achieve a level of
safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be
obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: This limited exemption is effective from June 18, 2015, through
June 17, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register [49 CFR 381.315(a)].
    Section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to extend any
exemption from any provision of the HOS regulations under 49 CFR part
395 that was in effect on the date of enactment of the Act for a period
of 5 years from the date the exemption was granted. The exemption may
be renewed. Because this action merely implements a statutory mandate
that took effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act, notice and
comment are not required.

SC&RA Exemption

    The SC&RA, a trade association, applied for a limited exemption
from the mandatory rest break requirement of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) on
behalf of all specialized carriers and drivers responsible for the
transportation of loads exceeding standard legal weight and dimensional
limits--oversize/overweight (OS/OW) loads--that require a permit issued
by a government authority.
    FMCSA reviewed SC&RA's application and the public comments and
concluded that limiting the exemption to these OS/OW permitted loads
would promote safety at least as effectively as the 30-minute break.
Because hours in which an OS/OW load can travel are restricted by
permit requirements, often those hours are in conflict with the timing
of the required 30-minute rest break. A Notice of Final Determination
granting the SC&RA exemption was published on June 18, 2015 [80 FR
34957].
    The substance of the exemption is not affected by this extension.
The exemption covers only the 30-minute rest break requirement [49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(ii)]. The exemption is restricted to drivers of specialized
loads moving in interstate commerce that exceed normal weight and
dimensional limits--OS/OW loads--and require a permit issued by a
government authority.
    The FMCSA does not believe the safety record of any driver
operating under this exemption will deteriorate. However, should
deterioration in safety occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to
protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The
FMCSA has the authority to terminate the exemption at any time the
Agency has the data/information to conclude that safety is being
compromised.

    Issued on: November 3, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-27267 Filed 11-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


From: Szabo, Aaron<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:55 PM
To: Brachtl, Megan
Cc: Ling, Michael
Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 Data Requirements for SO2 FR

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 1363 on the EPA final rule entitled, Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73308-73309]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM
and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that
a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having
in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of May 3, 2022 has been established for the FIRM and,
where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified
flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Nottoway County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-2101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Blackstone.....................  Town Hall, 100 West Elm Street,
                                          Blackstone, VA 23824.

Town of Burkeville.....................  Town Hall, 224 2nd Street
                                          Northwest, Burkeville, VA
                                          23922.
Town of Crewe..........................  Town Office, 125 East Carolina
                                          Avenue, Crewe, VA 23930.
Unincorporated Areas of Nottoway County  Nottoway County Administrator's
                                          Offices, 344 West Courthouse
                                          Road, Nottoway, VA 23955.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Webster County, West Virginia and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-2053
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Camden-On-Gauley...............  Water Works Office, 9580
                                          Webster Road, Camden-On-
                                          Gauley, WV 26208.
Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.  Webster County Office of
                                          Emergency Services Building,
                                          210 Back Fork Street, Webster
                                          Springs, WV 26288.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-28035 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41469-41471]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-478-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest
Deadline

    Take notice that on July 21, 2021, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515, filed in the above referenced docket a prior notice
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.206, 157.208(b), and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations and its blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-402-000 requesting authorization to: (1) Plug and abandon the
inactive injection and withdrawal M-2 Well, including associated
surface facilities; (2) abandon by removal the related Cathodic
Protection System rectifier; (3) abandon in-place approximately 480
feet of the 6-inch-diameter M10 Lateral; and (4) abandon by removal the
6-inch-diameter M10 Lateral Valve and the interconnect between the M10
Lateral and the 16-inch-diameter M1 Trunkline, all at Natural's Cairo
Mount Simon Storage Field in Louisa County, Iowa. Natural asserts that
there will be no impact on the Cairo Mount Simon Storage Field's
certificated parameters, including total

gas storage inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer
boundaries, and certificated capacity. Natural estimates the cost of
the project to be approximately $234,000, all as more fully set forth
in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    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://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 the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Kevin L. Palmer, Director, Regulatory Kinder Morgan, Inc., as operator
of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite
700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 27,
2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is
explained below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is September 27, 2021. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is September 27, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before September 27, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP21-478-000 in your submission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of submissions.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing.''
    The Commission's eFiling staff are available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission. Your submission
must reference the Project docket number CP21-478-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers
Grove, Illinois 60515-7918. Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor
must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be

downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: July 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16422 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18612-18613]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-106-000.
    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC, CPV Shore, LLC, CPV Keenan II
Renewable Energy Company, LLC, CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC, Benson Power,
LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and
Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of CPV Maryland, LLC, et.
al.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5499.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-107-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Application Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act
for Acquisition of Jurisdictional Facilities by Public Service Company
of New Mexico.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5516.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-828-003.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Errata Filing
Modifications to Attach O Formula Rate to be effective 2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150330-5533.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-967-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Old Dominion Electric
Cooperative.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing per 3/17/
15 Order in Docket No. ER15-967-000 to be effective 2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150330-5517.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1400-000.
    Applicants: Erie Power, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Erie Power Market Based
Rate Tariff to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1401-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 3006
CP Bloom Wind, LLC Generator Interconnection Agreement to be effective
3/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1402-000.
    Applicants: Inertia Power II, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Initial Cancellation to
be effective 3/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1403-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Executed Services Agreement between NYSEG and FirstEnergy to be
effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5264.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1404-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(1): MRA 26
Rate Case Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5336.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1405-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 FERC Elec Rate Schedule
No. 10 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5437.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1406-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-31_SA 2766 ATC--City of Elkhorn CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5447.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1407-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-31_SA 2767 ATC--Manitowoc Public Utilities CFA to be effective 5/31/
2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5449.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1408-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-31_SA 2768 ATC--City of Plymouth CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5450.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1409-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-31_SA 2769 ATC--City of Reedsburg CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5474.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1410-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SDGE
TO Tariff Appendix X Formula Modification to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5506.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1411-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
03-31_SA 2770 ATC--Sun Prairie CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5513.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1412-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Application of Public Service Company of Colorado for
2014 Production Formula Rate Charges and Transmission Formula Rate
Charges for Post-Retirement Benefits Other than Pensions.
    Filed Date: 3/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150331-5542.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM14-3-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New
Orleans, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc, Entergy
Services, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to March 27, 2015 Response to Second
Deficiency Letter of Entergy Services, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 3/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150330-5572.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

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

    Dated: March 31, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07928 Filed 4-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 6717-01-P


Email sent to EPA contractor Bill Battye of EC/R from Meade Killion of
Etymotic

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

19:33 p.m.

Bill

Thanks for your cheerful response to my inquiry as to why the government
would start out by sending me 21 pages explaining how you plan to keep
my secrets in confidence.  Is this like the DOD losing 27 million
veteran's names and SS numbers into the hands of criminals?  I have no
confidence in any confidentiality that takes 21 pages to describe.  I
prefer a simple assurance, and I assume you will try to keep it and --
as in the DOD actions -- someone in your group may fail.

I have a deep seated concern about the tradition of government to take a
bad situation and make it worse, but I choose to hope that this one will
be an exception.

With regard to your questions as to market share, as far as I know
Etymotic Research makes all of the Musicians Earplugs worldwide.  The
finished product, attenuator buttons we produce, custom earmolds earmold
laboratories and audiologist's services run perhaps $170.  E-A-R and
Etymotic Research make all HiFi earplugs as far as we know. These sell
for $12, less in quantity.   Both products are patented.

Etymotic Research does not make any non-high-fidelity earplugs.
Actually, AEARO does sell a high-fidelity earplug patented 20+ years ago
by Ross Gardner:  A yellow foam E-A-R plug deeply inserted is also high
fidelity, giving a fairly flat 40 dB attenuation.  Perfect for heavy
metal rock bands and their listeners.  A colleague recently attended a
Slipknot heavy-metal rock concert at The Electric Factory in
Philadelphia, where the band played a steady 116 dbA.  Two hours of such
music should produce 300x the allowable daily dose, and cost by my
estimation 150 hair cells.

Those situations are relatively rare, fortunately.  The bad situation in
hearing protection is that some 80-90% of those who need protection need
less than 10 dB, yet the NRR rating on the earplugs they need is so low
that they can't be sold into the application.  As a result, they figure
out how to put high-attenuation foam plugs in improperly or drill holes
in their earmuffs.  Virtually no one needs a 40 dB (NRR=29 dB) earplug
except to prevent being bothered by snoring, a heavy metal rock band, or
extreme noise on an aircraft carrier.  Forcing someone who needs 7 dB to
wear a 40 dB earplug simply encourages them to learn how to circumvent
their excellent performance.

My thoughts on the crazy situation created by the use of NRR, and my
suggestion that it should only be used in conjunction with a new ARR
(Audibility Reduction Rating) are found in the Parwum Bonum, Plus Melius
article at the URL below.

A plug with true well-fitted attenuation of 40 dB will usually have an
NRR of 29 dB and my suggested ARR of 51 dB.  Someone with a 20 dB
hearing loss would have a worst-case audibility reduction to a plugged
threshold of 71 dB -- a severe hearing loss.  No wonder people put them
in sideways, especially those with hearing loss already.

http://www.etymotic.com/pdf/erl-0093-1993.pdf

A couple of examples:  Etymotic's ER-9 Musicians Earplugs, which give
almost exactly 9 dB to all users,  should perhaps be the earmold of
choice for the vast majority of those needing hearing protection.
Nonetheless, in one study they received an NRR approaching zero as I
recall.  Similarly, the ER-9 can not be sold as hearing protection in
Europe, where nothing less than their equivalent of NRR = 11 dB is
allowed to be labeled as such.  Probably no ER-9 wearer has obtained
less than 7 dB average attenuation.

In another example, in one EARCAL measurement of the one-size-fits-most
HiFi earplug that E-A-R and Etymotic Research both produce and sell, the
average attenuation measured by Elliott Berger on 10 subjects with three
replications was 20.0 dB.  The average of all data at measurement
frequencies of 250 through 8000 Hz was 20 dB.

The calculated NRR was 12 dB, and so that number is listed on all
packages by both companies.  The irony is that the not one of the ten
subjects exhibited an across-frequency average attenuation (averaging
their data at all three replications) of less than 19 dB.

Those across-frequency average attenuations for the ten subjects were:

20

19

20

20

20

20

20

19

20

19

Labeling the package containing such earplugs with NRR = 12 dB is
essentially dishonest:

The problem with the NRR is that it mixes measurement variability with
across-subject variability.  It has long been my belief that it was a
very poorly thought out well-meaning attempt to insure that no one was
cheated of their labeled attenuation.  The problem with this approach is
that anyone can drill holes in their earmuffs if they want.

It seems to me we should be able to label the package of HiFi Earplugs

NR = 19-20 dB with proper insertion, and 2-12 dB with improper
insertion.

By providing useful information for the first time, we might take the
burden off of the government and place it on the shoulders of the user,
who is ultimately the only one who can decide how careful to be.  No
one, not even the government, can force someone against his or her will
to properly insert an earplug.  I gather the A method and B method are
moving in that direction, but I suspect they will fall far short of
telling the buyer the truth such as expressed above.

I am not inclined to provide any marketing information to the government
so the cost to industry of new labeling can be assessed.  The very
question concerns me, because it misses the real cost:  In my opinion,
the cost of re-labeling would be trivial compared to the human cost of
the present system, which often causes the very hearing loss it is
intended to prevent by:

    a)  Misrating the low-attenuation earplugs most people need

    b)  Preventing them from even obtaining them as earplugs in Europe

    c)  Pretending that a single government-approved NRR number provides
sufficient information on the basis of which an intelligent consumer
would be induced to choose and use proper protection

    d) Encouraging them to drill holes in their muffs and put the
earplugs in sideways.

As such, any cost to Etymotic Research is essentially trivial, given our
mission of preventing hearing loss.  In my view, time after time the
essentially dishonest NRR information has stood in the way of
accomplishing our mission and your mission.

Thanks for listening.

Mead C. Killion, Ph.D.,Sc.D.(hon)

   Adjunct Professor of Audiology, Northwestern University

   Adjunct Professor of Audiology, City University of New York Graduate
School

President, Etymotic Research


[Federal Register: April 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 15916-15917]
[DOCID:fr03ap07-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension: Rule 15c2-3; SEC File No. 270-539; OMB Control No. 3235-
0599.

    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 (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Proposed rule 15c2-3 (17 CFR 240.15c2-3) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) would require brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers to provide point of sale
disclosure to investors prior to effecting transactions in mutual fund
shares, UIT interests and college savings plan interests. The
disclosure would provide investors with targeted material information
about distribution-related costs and remuneration that lead to
conflicts of interest for their brokers, dealers or municipal
securities dealers. The collection of information under proposed rule
15c2-3 would require some of the disclosure that is also required under
rule 15c2-2. However, in contrast to the confirmation disclosure
required under proposed rule 15c2-2, which a customer will not receive
in writing until after a transaction has been effected, the point of
sale disclosure that would be required under rule 15c2-3 would
specifically require that investors be provided with information that
they can use at the time they determine whether to enter into a
transaction to purchase one of the covered securities.
    In addition, the Commission, the self-regulatory organizations, and
other securities regulatory authorities would be able to use records of
point of sale disclosure delivered pursuant to proposed rule 15c2-3 in
the course of examinations, and investigations, as well as enforcement
proceedings against brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers.
However, no governmental agency would regularly receive any of the
information described above.
    Proposed rule 15c2-2 potentially would apply to all of the
approximately 5,338 brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
that are registered with the Commission and that are members of NASD.
It would also potentially apply to approximately 62 additional
municipal securities dealers. It is important to note, however, that
the confirmation is a customary document used by the industry.
    Proposed rule 15c2-3(d) would require brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers to make records of their disclosure
sufficient to

demonstrate compliance with the delivery requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of proposed rule 15c2-3. The brokers, dealers or municipal
securities dealers would have to preserve those records for the period
specified in Exchange Act rule 17a-4(b) (17 CFR 240.17a-4(b)), or, in
the case of records of oral communications or the disclosures, for the
period specified in Exchange Act rule 17a-4(b) with regard to similar
written communications and records. While this requirement often can be
satisfied by maintaining a copy of the disclosure document that was
provided to the customer, in the case of disclosure solely by means of
oral communications, this provision would require the broker, dealer or
municipal securities dealer to have compliance procedures in place that
are adequate to demonstrate that it provided the required disclosure.
Based on discussions with industry participants, the Commission staff
estimates that the annual burden to brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers to develop and implement such compliance procedures
would be approximately 2 million hours.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The staff estimates that the burden to the 10 vendors to
maintain their systems would be 500,000 hours annually, or 50,000
hours per vendor. The staff estimates that the burden allocated to
each client on a pro rata basis would be 100 hours annually per
broker, dealer or municipal security dealer that uses vendors'
services (500,000 hours/5,000 = 100 hours). The staff estimates,
based on discussions with industry representatives, that the 400
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers that use
proprietary confirmation delivery systems, on average, would have a
burden of 3,750 hours annually for maintaining systems. Thus, the
annual burden for maintaining systems is estimated to be 2 million
hours ((5,000 x 100) + (400 x 3,750) = 2,000,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on discussions with industry representatives, the Commission
staff estimates that there are 1 billion confirmations delivered
annually to customers in connection with securities transactions
involving mutual fund shares, UIT interests and college savings plan
interests. Proposed rule 15c2-3 would require brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers to provide disclosure to customers about
costs and conflicts at the point of sale for each of these
transactions. The information that would be required to be delivered
pursuant to proposed rule 15c2-3 would be derived from information that
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers would otherwise
prepare in order to fulfill their confirmation disclosure requirements
under proposed rule 15c2-2.
    The Commission staff further estimates from information provided by
industry participants that it will take, on average, about one minute
to deliver to customers the point of sale disclosure required under
proposed rule 15c2-3. The Commission staff also estimates from
information provided by industry participants that the annual burden to
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers to deliver at the
point of sale the disclosure that would be required under proposed rule
15c2-3, and to maintaining systems that would permit such disclosure,
would be 16.7 million hours.\2\ As a result, the Commission staff
estimates that the total annual burden to brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers to comply with the requirements of
proposed rule 15c2-3, would be 18.7 million hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ (1 billion transactions at one minute per point of sale
disclosure = 1 billion minutes; 1 billion minutes/60 minutes per
hour = 16.7 million hours.)
    \3\ (16.7 million hours per point of sale disclosure + 2 million
hours to develop and implement compliance procedures = 18.7 million
hours.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on discussions with industry participants, the Commission
staff estimates that the annual cost to brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers for call center services and other service providers
which would assist with development and implementation of procedures
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the delivery requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed rule 15c2-3 would be approximately
$40 million.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that the annual cost would be $7,400 per broker,
dealer or municipal securities dealer. (5,400 brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers x $7,400 = $39,996,000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the Commission staff estimates that the annual burden
for complying with the requirements of proposed rule 15c2-3 would be
18.7 million hours and that the annual costs of complying with the
requirements of proposed rule 15c2-3, including call center services,
and recordkeeping and compliance costs, would be $40 million.
    Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
60 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 21, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6126 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 31622]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1970-DR]

Oklahoma; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1970-DR), dated April 22, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 22, 2011.

    Pushmataha County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-13515 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83160-83163]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27849]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0382; FRL-9955-20-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT15

Revisions to Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for
Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to update a procedure in the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS). The procedure provides the ongoing quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) procedures for assessing the acceptability of
particulate matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).
The procedure explains the criteria for passing an annual response
correlation audit (RCA) and the criteria for passing an annual relative
response audit (RRA). The procedure currently contains a requirement
that the annual QA/QC test results for affected facilities must fall
within the same response range that was used to develop the existing PM
CEMS correlation curve. As a result, some facilities are unable to meet
the criteria for passing their annual QA/QC test because their
emissions are now lower than the range previously set during their
correlation testing. We are modifying the procedure to allow facilities
to extend their PM CEMS correlation regression line to the lowest PM
CEMS response obtained during the annual RCA or RRA, when these PM CEMS
responses are less than the lowest response used to develop the
existing correlation curve. This change will ensure that facilities
that have reduced their emissions since completing their correlation
testing will no longer be penalized because their lower emissions fall
outside their initial response range. This action also corrects a
typographical error in the procedure.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 21, 2017 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by December 21, 2016.
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0382, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (e.g., on the Web,
Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this direct final
rule should be addressed to Ms. Kimberly Garnett, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (E143-02),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?
    D. Judicial Review
II. This Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no
adverse comment. This action modifies Procedure 2, sections 10.4(5) and
(6), to allow facilities that have reduced their PM emissions since
their PM CEMS correlation curve was developed to extend their
correlation regression line to the point corresponding to the lowest PM
CEMS response obtained during an annual RCA or RRA. This extended
correlation regression line will then be used to determine if results
of this RCA or RRA meet the criteria specified in section 10.4,
paragraphs (5) and (6) of Procedure 2, respectively. This change will
ensure that facilities that have reduced their emissions since
completing their correlation testing will no longer be penalized
because their lower emissions fall outside their initial response
range. This action also corrects a typographical error in the
introduction to section 10.4, paragraph (6) of Procedure 2. In the
``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register publication, we are
publishing a separate proposed rule to modify Procedure 2. If the EPA
receives any significant and relevant adverse comments, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on the
proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on the proposed rule,
see the ADDRESSES section of this direct final rule.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The entities potentially affected by this rule include any facility
that is required to install and operate a PM CEMS under any provision
of title 40 of the CFR. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this rule will also be available online at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/new.html.
D. Judicial Review.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 20, 2017.
Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ``[i]f the
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that
it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for
public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this direct
final rule, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review,
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of this action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).
    Rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this
direct final rule, parties with objections are encouraged to file
comments in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register
to allow the EPA to withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment(s) in the final rulemaking.

II. This Final Action

    On January 12, 2004, the EPA promulgated Procedure 2--Quality
Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources (69 FR 1786). Procedure 2,
sections 10.4(5) and (6), contain the requirement that when conducting
the annual RCA or RRA QA/QC test procedures, a specified amount of the
required number of PM CEMS response values, or data points, must lie
within the PM CEMS response range used to develop the PM CEMS
correlation curve. In other words, when conducting the annual QA/QC
tests, the PM CEMS response values should not be higher or lower than
the values used to develop the correlation curve for that PM CEMS.
Recently, as PM emission limits have been reduced and facilities have
installed more robust PM emission control devices, a number of
facilities have found that their PM emissions are lower than their PM
CEMS correlation curve. As a result, the facilities are now unable to
meet the criteria for a passing the annual Procedure 2 QA/QC tests.
    In order to rectify this situation, we are modifying Procedure 2,
sections 10.4(5) and (6), to allow facilities to extend their
correlation regression line to the lowest PM CEMS response obtained
during a RCA or RRA. When a RCA or RRA is performed, if any of the PM
CEMS response values are lower than the response range of the existing
correlation curve, the facility will take the existing correlation
regression line and extend it to the lowest PM CEMS response value
found during the annual RCA or RRA. The extension of the existing
regression line will be accomplished by using the lowest PM CEMS
response value, or x-value, found during the RCA or RRA, solving the
regression line equation for the corresponding y-value and then
extending the regression line to this new lowest point. This extended
correlation regression line will then be used to determine if the RCA
or RRA data meet

the criteria specified for a RCA or a RRA, in section 10.4(5) and (6),
respectively.
    This action also corrects a typographical error in the introduction
to section 10.4, paragraph (6) of Procedure 2. Paragraph (6) which
originally read, ``To pass an RRA, you must meet the criteria specified
in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) . . .'', is being corrected to read: ``To
pass an RRA, you must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i)
through (iii) . . .'' Without this revision, paragraph (6)(iii) would
remain unused in Procedure 2. This typographical correction is
necessary to fulfill the intent of Procedure 2, section 10.4(6), when
promulgated. See 69 FR 1786.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities in the regulated industry for which Procedure 2 applies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Procedure 2 is applicable to facility owners and
operators who are responsible for one or more PM CEMS used for
monitoring emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a
procedural change and does not have any impact on human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines
that this action is subject to provisions of section 307(d). Section
307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under
the CAA. Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section
307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems,
Particulate matter, Procedures.

    Dated: November 8, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Appendix F, Procedure 2, in section 10.4, paragraphs (5) and (6)
are revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    10.4 * * *
    (5) What are the criteria for passing a RCA? To pass a RCA, you
must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii)
of this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RCA criteria,
it is out of control, with the following exception: If any of the PM
CEMS response values resulting from your RCA are lower than the
lowest PM CEMS response value of your existing correlation curve,
you may extend your correlation regression line to the point
corresponding to the lowest PM CEMS response value obtained during
the RCA. This extended correlation regression line must then be used
to determine if the RCA data meets the criteria specified in
paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For all 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value can be no
greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop
your correlation curve.
    (ii) For 9 of the 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value
must lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your
correlation curve.
    (iii) At least 75 percent of a minimum number of 12 sets of PM
CEMS and reference method measurements must fall within a specified
area on a graph of the correlation regression line. The specified
area on the graph of the correlation regression line is

defined by two lines parallel to the correlation regression line,
offset at a distance of 25 percent of the numerical
emission limit value from the correlation regression line.
    (6) What are the criteria to pass a RRA? To pass a RRA, you must
meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iii) of
this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RRA criteria, it
is out of control, with the following exception: If any of the PM
CEMS response values resulting from your RRA are lower than the
lowest PM CEMS response value of your existing correlation curve,
you may extend your correlation regression line to the point
corresponding to the lowest PM CEMS response value obtained during
the RRA; this extended correlation regression line must then be used
to determine if the RRA data meets the criteria specified in
paragraphs (6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For all three data points, the PM CEMS response value can be
no greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop
your correlation curve.
    (ii) For two of the three data points, the PM CEMS response
value must lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your
correlation curve.
    (iii) At least two of the three sets of PM CEMS and reference
method measurements must fall within the same specified area on a
graph of the correlation regression line as required for the RCA and
described in paragraph (5)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-27849 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P