[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19036-19038]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1055]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston
Harbor, Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, SC during the Charleston
Race Week from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. This special
local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators, and the general public during the event. This regulation
prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from April 15, 2016 through April 17,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1055 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of
Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone(843)740-3184, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On November 18, 2015, the Charleston Ocean Racing Association
notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor a series of sailboat
races in the Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC. from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. In response, on February 5,
2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled
Charleston Race Week. There we stated why we issued the NPRM and
invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this
special local regulation. During the comment period that ended March 7,
2016, we received no comments.
    Under good cause provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we are making
this rule effective less than 30 days after its publication in the
Federal Register. The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective starting April 15, 2016 because this special
local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life and property
during this high speed boat race and it would be contrary to public
interest not to make this rule effective by April 15, 2016. Also, this
regulation will have a limited impact on the waterway for a limited
time and designated representatives will be on scene to assist the
public with compliance.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United
States during three Charleston Race Week sailboat races. It was
determined that potential hazards are associated with the areas used in
the Charleston Race Week sailboat races that can be alleviated by
prohibiting access to the regulated areas.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published
February 5, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    From April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016, Charleston Ocean Racing
Association will host three sailboat races on Charleston Harbor in
Charleston, South Carolina during Charleston Race Week. Approximately
300 sailboats will participate in the three races. This rule
establishes a special local regulation on certain waters of Charleston
Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The special local regulation will
be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on April 15, 2016 through
April 17, 2016. The special local regulation consists of the following
three race areas.
    1. Race Area #1. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius of
position 32[deg]46'10'' N. 79[deg]55'15'' W.
    2. Race Area #2. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius of
position 32[deg]46'02'' N. 79[deg]54'15'' W.
    3. Race Area #3. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius of
position 32[deg]45'55'' N. 79[deg]53'39'' W.
    Except for those persons and vessels participating in the sailboat
races, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the race areas unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the race areas may
contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-
7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to
request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the race areas is granted by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during
the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during
the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners;
(4) the safety zone will impact only 3 small designated areas of
Charleston Harbor for less than 9 hours per day for 3 days over the
weekend of April 15, to 17, 2016, and thus is limited in time and
scope.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during
the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory
Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a
regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction.
    An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination
and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-1055 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-1055  Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week,
Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. A special local regulation is established on
waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The special
local regulations will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.
from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. The special local
regulations consist of the following three race areas.
    (1) Race Area #1. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius
of position 32[deg]46'10'' N. 79[deg]55'15'' W.
    (2) Race Area #2. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius
of position 32[deg]46'02'' N. 79[deg]54'15'' W.
    (3) Race Area #3. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius
of position 32[deg]45'55'' N. 79[deg]53'39'' W.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in Charleston
Race Week or serving as safety vessels. Persons and vessels desiring to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843)
740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16,
to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the
Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced daily from 8:30
a.m. until 5 p.m. from April 15 through April 17, 2016.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
G.L. Tomasulo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2016-07589 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21227-21229]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program Update, Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport (FLL), Fort Lauderdale, Florida

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Update submitted by
Broward County for the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
(FLL). See supplementary information for details. On October 3, 2019,
the FAA determined that the Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) submitted by
Broward County under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable
requirements. On October 12, 2022, the FAA determined that it would be
initiating final review of the noise compatibility program submitted by
Broward County for approval or disapproval. On March 30, 2023, the FAA
approved the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport NCP
Update. The NCP contained four noise abatement measures, six land use
measures, and nine program management measures. Three of the four noise
abatement measures proposed at FLL are related to new or revised flight
procedures. Of the 19 measures proposed, 15 were approved, one was
approved as voluntary, and three were disapproved for purposes of part
150.

APPLICABLE DATE: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport NCP Update is March 30,
2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Green, Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark
Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, Florida 32819,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents
reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location by
appointment with the above contact.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces FAA's approval of the
Noise Compatibility Program Update for the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport (FLL), effective on March 30, 2023. Per United
States Code section 47504 (49 U.S.C. 47504) and Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150, an airport sponsor who previously
submitted a noise exposure map (NEM) may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport sponsor for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the NEMs. As required by 49 U.S.C. 47504, such
programs must be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and the FAA. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that
of the airport sponsor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA approval or disapproval of an airport
sponsor's recommendations in their noise compatibility program are made
in accordance with the requirements and standards pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
47504 and 14 CFR part 150, which is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR 150.23;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign

commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations of FAA's approval of NCPs are delineated in 14
CFR 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability
of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the noise compatibility program nor a determination
that all measures covered by the NCP are eligible for grant-in-aid
funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests must be
submitted to the FAA Orlando Airports District Office at 8427 SouthPark
Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, Florida 32819.
    Broward County submitted the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and
other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning
study to the FAA and the FAA determined that the NEMs for FLL were in
compliance with applicable requirements under 14 CFR 150, effective
October 3, 2019 (Noise Exposure Map Notice for Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport, Fort Lauderdale, FL, volume 84,
Federal Register, pages 54942-3, October 11, 2019). The FAA formally
received the NCP based on the accepted NEMs for FLL on December 20,
2021. The airport operator requested that the FAA review the submitted
material and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented
jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a
NCP. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days,
was initiated on October 12, 2022. Notice of the intent to review the
NCP was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2022 (Notice
of Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program Update and Request for
Review, volume 87, Federal Register, pages 63146-7, October 18, 2022).
The Federal Register Notice also announced the start of a 60-day period
of public review for the NCP documentation. The FAA received one
comment from an interested party during the public review period and
one comment after the comment period closed.
    The FLL NCP is comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions within
the next one to five years. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and
approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described in
49 U.S.C. 47504. The FAA began its review of the program on October 12,
2022 and was required by a provision of 49 U.S.C. 47504 to approve or
disapprove the program within 180 days, other than the use of new or
modified flight procedures for noise control. Failure to approve or
disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed an
approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained 19 proposed measures to minimize
impacts of aviation noise on and off the airport. The FAA completed its
review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements
of the 49 U.S.C. 47504 and 14 CFR part 150 were satisfied. A Record of
Approval for the overall program was issued by the FAA effective March
30, 2023.
    The specific program elements and their individual determinations
are as follows:
    FLL Noise Abatement Measure 1 (NA-1): Continue Voluntary User
Program for Runway 10R-28L--Approved as a Voluntary Measure.
    FLL Noise Abatement Measure 2 (NA-2): Reduce Early Aircraft
Departure Turns from FLL through Implementation of ELSO or ELSO-
Equivalent Procedures During West-Flow Conditions--Disapproved for
Purposes of Part 150.
    FLL Noise Abatement Measure 3 (NA-3): Reduce Early Aircraft
Departure Turns from FLL through Implementation of ELSO or ELSO-
Equivalent Procedures during East-Flow Conditions--Disapproved for
Purposes of Part 150.
    FLL Noise Abatement Measure 4 (NA-4): Modify Aircraft Arrival
Profiles to the West of FLL to Keep Aircraft Higher--Disapproved for
Purposes of Part 150.
    FLL Land Use Measure LU-1: Implement a Voluntary Acquisition
Program for a Portion of the Ocean Waterway Mobile Home Park--Approved.
    FLL Land Use Measure LU-2: Implement a Voluntary Acquisition
Program for a Portion of the Everglades Lakes Mobile Home Park--
Approved.
    FLL Land Use Measure LU-3: Implement a Voluntary Residential Sound
Insulation Program for Eligible Dwelling Units located in the Future
Conditions (2023) DNL 65 and Higher Contours--Approved.
    FLL Land Use Measure LU-4: Encourage Local Jurisdictions to
Implement Real Estate Fair Disclosure Requirements that Address
Potential for Aircraft-Related Noise--Approved.
    FLL Land Use Measure LU-5: Encourage Local Jurisdictions to
Incorporate Planning Actions in their Respective Comprehensive Plans
related to Aircraft Noise that are Consistent with the Policies of the
BrowardNEXT Plan--Approved.
    FLL Land Use Measure LU-6: Encourage Local Jurisdictions Efforts to
Incorporate Noise Overlay Zoning Ordinances to Regulate Sound
Attenuation and Compatible Land Uses near the Airport--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 1 (PM-1): Maintain the Existing
Noise Office and Information web page--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 2 (PM-2): Evaluate/Update the
Existing Noise Monitoring and Flight Tracking System--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 3 (PM-3): Maintain Noise Complaint
Management System--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 4 (PM-4): Conduct Community Outreach
Activities--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 5 (PM-5): Evaluate the Composition
of the ANAC--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 6 (PM-6): Install Runway Reminder
Signs--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 7 (PM-7): Evaluate a Voluntary Fly
Quiet Program--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 8 (PM-8): Update the Noise Exposure
Maps--Approved.
    FLL Program Management Measure 9 (PM-9): Update the Noise
Compatibility Program--Approved.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in the Record of
Approval signed by the FAA Airports Southern Division Deputy Director
on March 30, 2023. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation
materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for
review at the FAA office listed above. The Record of Approval will also
be available on the internet on the FAA's website at http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/ and
Broward County's

FLL Part 150 Study website at http://www.fllpart150.com.

    Issued in Orlando, FL, on April 4, 2023.
Bartholomew Vernace,
Manager, Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-07451 Filed 4-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48815-48816]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2680-113]

Consumers Energy Company and DTE Electric Company; Notice of
Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy

Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the 1,785-
megawatt Ludington Pumped Storage Project (FERC Project No. 2680-113)
and has prepared a single environmental assessment (EA). The project
consists of an upper reservoir and a lower reservoir located on the
east shore of Lake Michigan in the townships of Pere Marquette and
Summit, Mason County, Michigan and in Port Sheldon, Ottawa County,
Michigan.
    In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental
effects of relicensing the project and concludes that issuing a new
license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
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. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected]; toll-free at 1-866-208-3676; or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu
of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
2680-113.
    For further information, contact Shana Wiseman at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

    Dated: September 20, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21058 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 42718]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14083]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10912-01-ORD]

Ambient Air Monitoring Equivalent and Equivalent Methods;
Designation of One New Equivalent Method

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the designation of a new equivalent method for
monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated one new equivalent method for measuring
concentrations of PM10 in ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Air Methods and
Characterization Division (MD-D205-03), Center for Environmental
Measurements and Modeling, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth
in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
equivalent or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting
their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all equivalent or
equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new equivalent
method for measuring concentrations of PM10 in ambient air.
This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as
amended on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291-65468). The new equivalent
method for PM10 is an automated method (monitor) utilizing
the measurement principle based on inertial separation of the
PM10 size range with filter sample collection followed by
analysis by beta attenuation. This newly designated equivalent method
is identified as follows:
    EQPM-0423-260,''Thermo Scientific Model 5030iQ SHARP Monitor''
operated at a flow rate of 16.67 liters per minute for 24-hour average
measurements configured for PM10 measurements with a
louvered PM10 size selective inlet as specified in 40 CFR 50
Appendix L, Figs. L-2 through L-19, inlet connector, and operational
calibration and servicing as outlined in the Model 5030iQ SHARP
instructional manual. Model 5030iQ instrument firmware version 01.0.09
or later.
    This application for an equivalent method determination for this
PM10 method was received by the Office of Research and
Development on February 22, 2023. This monitor is commercially
available from the applicant, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Air Quality
Instruments, Environmental Instruments Division, 27 Forge Parkway,
Franklin, MA 02038.
    A representative test analyzer was tested in accordance with the
applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on
October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other
information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53, that this method should be designated
as an equivalent method.
    As a designated equivalent method, this method is acceptable for
use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements
of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes,
this method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or
instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any
specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational
settings) specified in the designated method description (see the
identification of the method above).
    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program,'' EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such
methods by users are specified under section 2.8 (Modifications of
Methods by Users) of appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions
should be reported to: Director, Air Methods and Characterization
Division (MD-D205-03), Center for Environmental Measurements and
Modeling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
    Designation of this equivalent method is intended to assist the
States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance
systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial
availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to
the applicant.

Alice Gilliland,
Acting Director, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling.
[FR Doc. 2023-14083 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36945-36946]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0492]

Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee; Vacancy

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications; extension of application.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee. The Great Lakes Pilotage
Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the
Secretary of Homeland Security through the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant
on matters relating to Great Lakes pilotage, including review of
proposed Great Lakes pilotage regulations and policies.

DATES: Open until the vacancy is filled.

ADDRESSES: Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in
an appointment to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee that also
identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under,
along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the
following methods:
     By Email: [email protected].
     By Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> ATTN: Mr. Rajiv Khandpur.
     By Mail: Commandant (CG-WWM-2), U.S. Coast Guard.
    Attention: Mr. Rajiv Khandpur, Designated Federal Officer, Great
Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE,
Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rajiv Khandpur, Designated Federal
Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther
King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone 202-
372-1525, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard
published a request in the Federal Register Volume 83, Number 60, for
applications for membership in the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory
Committee. The application in the notice is being extended until the
vacancy is filled. Applicants who responded to the initial notice do
not need to reapply.
    The Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee is a federal advisory
committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix). The Great Lakes Pilotage
Advisory Committee operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 9307, and
makes recommendations to the Secretary and the U.S. Coast Guard on
matters relating to the Great Lakes.
    Meetings of the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee will be
held with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. The Committee
is required to meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be
held at the request of a majority of the Committee or at the discretion
of the Designated Federal Officer.
    Each Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee member serves a term
of office of up to 3 years. Members may serve a maximum of six
consecutive years. All members serve without compensation from the
Federal Government; however, they may receive travel reimbursement and
per diem.
    We will consider applicants for one position that will become
vacant on September 30, 2018.
     One member with a background in finance or accounting,
who--
    a. Must have been recommended to the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security by a unanimous vote of the other members of the
Committee, and
    b. May be appointed without regard to the requirement that each
member have five years of practical experience in maritime operations.

    To be eligible, applicants should have particular expertise,
knowledge, and experience regarding the regulations and policies on the
pilotage vessels on the Great Lakes, and at least five years of
practical experience in maritime operations.
    If you are selected as a member you will be appointed and serve as
a Special Government Employee as defined in 202(a) of Title 18, U.S.C.
Applicants for appointment as a Special Government Employee are
required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE
Form 450). The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the
information in them to the public except under an order issued by a
Federal Court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.
552a). Only the Designated U.S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or
her designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
Applicants can obtain this form by going to the website of the Office
of Government Ethics (www.oge.gov) or by contacting the individual
listed above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory
Committees in an individual capacity. See ``Revised Guidance on
Appointment of Lobbyists to federal advisory committees, Boards and
Commissions'' (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). Registered lobbyists are
lobbyists as defined in Title 2 U.S.C. 1602 who are required by Title 2
U.S.C. 1603 to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House Representatives.
    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in
selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age,
membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The
Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse
candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Rajiv Khandpur,
Designated Federal Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee,
via one of the transmittal methods in the ADDRESSES section by the
deadline in the DATES section of this notice. Email submittals will
receive email receipt confirmation.

    Dated: July 26, 2018.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems.
[FR Doc. 2018-16335 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Note to: Files From: Doug Carter, DOE/ FE 26 Subject: Analysis of NSR rule impacts Date: August 21, 2003 Introduction Both EPA and DOE/ EIA have modeled potential impacts of allowing efficiency upgrades on coal fired power plants, and results of these simulations were included in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) published by EPA. The major differences in the two analyses were that they used different simulation models ( NEMS vs IPM), and they evaluated somewhat different assumptions for how the change at the power plant might manifest in operation ( i. e., assumptions on efficiency, capacity, and availability changes). After additional consideration, DOE conducted further analysis, using assumptions differing from both of the earlier analyses.

Discussion A change in the definition of " routine maintenance, repair, and replacement" ( RMRR) would likely remove a barrier to improvements in power plant efficiency ( or heat rate), which is generally perceived as a positive outcome, with probable emission reduction implications. Such changes could also affect availability, if companies repair or replace components which are likely sources of future breakdowns, and capacity, if repairs enable a unit to increase its electrical output with or without an increase in fuel consumption. Increases in availability and capacity would likely lead to an emissions increase, if applied uniformly across all coal units. Hence, from an emissions perspective, there is a tension between pure efficiency improvements, and availability or capacity improvements.

Availability changes are perhaps the easiest to consider with historic data. A substantial body of data accumulated by the North American Electric Reliability Council ( NERC) shows that, over the past two decades, reliability at coal fired power plants has improved, but at a declining rate in recent years. The data in Figure 1 suggest that future improvements in availability will be modest compared to improvements in the 1980' s, for example. A cumulative future improvement of 1% seems like a most likely scenario, but an improvement of 2% may be possible. These two values are evaluated in this analysis.

Possible efficiency improvements were discussed in the draft RIA. They apply almost equally to the " boiler side" of the power plant and the " turbine side". Improvements of up to 15% seem feasible with known or emerging technologies. Earlier modeling by DOE evaluated rates of 5%, 10%, and 15%. Because improvements of 15% were essentially extensions of the trends established by the lower efficiency improvement assumptions, this analysis focuses on improvements of 5% and 10%. A greater efficiency improvement is still deemed reasonable, given the ongoing voluntary programs to minimize carbon dioxide emissions as well as the potential for fuel savings and lower overall operational costs, but the emission implications of such efficiency improvements can be inferred from simulations of efficiency improvements of 5% and 10%.

The significant change in this set of simulations by DOE, compared to DOE's earlier analysis, is the inclusion of an assumed improvement in capacity, where efficiency is improved. ( EPA's simulations, included in the draft RIA, incorporated capacity increases, but DOE's did not.) DOE discussed this issue with knowledgeable individuals involved in power generation1 and reached the following conclusions:

  Most older power plants in the U. S. were designed with excess capacity in the turbine unit, compared to the boiler systems. Newer plants in the U. S. are designed in a more balanced manner. Typical steam turbines in the 1960' s, for example, would have the ability to generate about 10% more electricity than the boiler could support with steam production, if the turbine were in optimum condition.

  Many existing boilers operate outside their original design specifications, due to use of lower sulfur coal, application of low NOx burners, or other changes which have left the boilers with insufficient auxiliary equipment, such as pulverizers, to maintain original design steam production. Such changes at power plants have impacted the boiler side of the power plant more than the steam turbine side.

  Steam turbines tend to degrade gradually over time. In terms of efficiency and capacity, the most important changes appear to be increased steam leakage through seals ( thereby avoiding rotating turbine blades), and blade erosion, which can change the angle of impact of steam on blades and reduce the force imparted by the steam on the blades. In terms of reliability, turbine blades can suffer from corrosion and metal fatigue, both of which can lead to blade breakage, which can lead to serious injury and equipment damage.

The capacity of a given boiler relative to its associated steam turbine is a site specific relationship, and probably varies over time. However, it is clear that if a boiler's capacity is either greater than or equal to that of its associated steam turbine, any capacity increases in the boiler ( which might accompany a boiler efficiency improvement) cannot be exploited unless the turbine increases in capacity as well. This phenomenon suggests that overall capacity improvements resulting from equipment replacement will be somewhat smaller than overall efficiency improvements. At this point, there is insufficient information to determine the exact difference. Earlier simulations by DOE assumed no improvement in capacity from efficiency improvements, and earlier EPA scenarios assumed capacity improvements equaled efficiency improvements. The simulations which are described in the current analysis make an assumption in between the earlier analyses: that capacity improvements will equal one half the assumed efficiency improvement.

1 Telecommunication between D. Carter, DOE, and R. Moates, TVA, July 29, 2003. Telecommunication between D. Smith, DOE, and J. Murphy, SAIC, July 29, 2003. Scenario Matrix Table 1 identifies assumptions used in the current computer analysis. Assessments of efficiency improvements of 15% are not necessary because these results can be inferred from the 5% and 10% simulations, and earlier runs.

Table 1. Simulation Run Heat Rate & Capacity Increase Availability Increase Base 0 0 S5.1 5% & 2.5% 1% S5.2 5% & 2.5% 2% S10.1 10% & 5% 1% S10.2 10% & 5% 2%

Figure 1 Coal Unit Availability ( NERC)

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Availability Factor 0.5 %/ year change 0.5 %/ year change 0.3 %/ year change 0.1 %/ year change R esults The revised assumptions led to modest changes from the projected emission baselines. Figures 2 and 3 show the projections for emissions of nitrogen oxides ( NOx) and sulfur dioxide ( SO2). The efficiency, capacity, and availability improvements for each simulation are indicated in the legends on the figures. For example, " NOx 5 2.5 1" is a scenario for NOx emissions in which efficiency increases 5%, capacity increases 2.5%, and availability increases by 1%. For SO2, it was surprising that emissions changed at all, given the national limit, or " cap", on power plant SO2. The small projected changes are due to possible " banking" behavior, in which source owners control more in some years and less in others to minimize anticipated control costs. Over time, all of these scenarios net out to the same cumulative SO2 emission reductions. For the scenarios simulated, NOx emissions are generally less than baseline emissions, although the reduction is quite minor for the simulations assuming only 5% improvements in efficiency, and in four of the years projected, national emissions are slightly above baseline for one scenario. Table 2 presents NOx results for selected years.

Figure 4 shows projected emissions of mercury under all of the scenarios modeled. Emissions under a more flexible NSR policy are consistently lower than baseline emissions, with the exception of certain years in the case for 5% efficiency, 2.5% capacity, and 2% availability improvement.

In general, for the scenarios including 10% improvements in heat rates, non capped pollutant emissions were reduced by about 2 5%, relative to the base case ( current NSR policy). For scenarios including 5% improvements in heat rates, non capped emissions were reduced by 0.5   2%. For the lesser set of efficiency improvement simulations, there were certain combinations of assumptions which led to small emission increases in specific years.

Table 2. NOx emission changes for each scenario. Scenario Assumed % change in NOx Emissions, million tons per year Heat Rate Capacity Availability 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Baseline 0 0 0 3.60 3.93 3.98 4.05 4.11 S 5.2.1  5 2.5 1 3.59 3.88 3.93 4.01 4.08 S 5.2.2  5 2.5 2 3.60 3.90 3.98 4.05 4.12 S 10.5.1  10 5 1 3.55 3.75 3.83 3.91 3.97 S 10.5.2  10 5 2 3.56 3.78 3.87 3.95 4.02 Overall cost savings can be estimated by making a conservative estimate that the cost of improvements total $ 100 per kilowatt of capacity ( this is substantially greater than preliminary estimates developed by DOE). Cumulative projected savings, assuming this level of investment in replaced components, are presented in Figure 7. These totals range from about $ 10 billion to $ 100 billion through the year 2025, considering only the change in electricity prices. Secondary benefits, not quantified, would likely evolve from reduced consumption of natural gas. In the scenarios simulated, natural gas use for power production typically declined by 5  14%. Such a reduction would reduce the price of natural gas in all sectors, leading to additional consumer savings. Figure 2 Power Plant Changes & Emissions  2 4 6 8 10 12 2002 2003 2004 2 005 2006 2007 200 8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Emissions, Million tpy NOx Baseline SO2 Baseline NOx 5 2.5 1 SO2 5 2.5 1 NOx 5 2.5 2 SO2 5 2.5 2 Figure 3 Power Plant Changes & Emissions  2 4 6 8 10 12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20 21 2022 2023 2024 2025 Emissions, Million tpy NOx Baseline SO2 Baseline NOx 10 5 1 SO2 10 5 1 NOx 10 5 2 SO2 10 5 2 Figure 4 Power Plant Changes and Mercury 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Emissions, tpy Baseline Mercury Mercury 10 5 1 Mercury 10 5 2 Mercury 5 2.5 1 Mercury 5 2.5 2 Figure 5 Potential Cost Savings From NSR Assuming $ 100/ kw of Replacements ( 20)  20 40 60 80 100 120 2004 Cumulative Savings, Billion $ Scen 5 / 2.5 / 1 Scen 5 / 2.5 / 2 Scen 10 / 5 / 1 Scen 10 / 5 / 2 Related Considerations The projections in this analysis do not include consideration of:   Heat rate ( efficiency) improvements exceeding 10%   Improvements occurring to a subset of coal units, such as units above a certain size or less than a certain age   Potential improvements to similar technologies not burning coal In general, all of these considerations would tend to change the extent of predicted changes, but not the direction. Additionally, although heat rate improvements as low as 5%, and availability improvements as high as 2% are deemed possible scenarios, this combination of assumptions is considered less likely than other combinations examined.

Conclusions Future emissions from power plants, aggregated at a national level, are projected to decrease under the range of scenarios examined in this analysis, which are predicated on an NSR policy that encourages equipment replacement leading to higher efficiency. With minimal ( 5%) improvements in efficiency, emissions decrease 0 1%. With efficiency improvements of 10%, emissions decrease 2 5%. In addition to reductions in emissions, substantial savings in the cost of electricity are possible through these improvements, totaling between $ 10 billion and $ 100 billion ( in 2001 dollars) by the year 2025.