UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

SUBJECT:
                               June 5, 2012

Technical Support Document (TSD) - Insignificance Findings for the Motor
Vehicle Emissions for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
the West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Area

FROM:	            /s/

Gregory Becoat

Environmental Scientist (3AP30)

TO:

Administrative Record for the Insignificance Findings for the Motor
Vehicle Emissions for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area

THRU:	                     /s/

Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30)

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to “conform to” the goals of State Implementation
Plans (SIP).  See, e.g., CAA section 176.  This means that such actions
will not cause or contribute to violations of a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS); worsen the severity of an existing violation;
or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).  Under this
rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality and transportation
agencies, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FHWA, and FTA to
demonstrate that their metropolitan transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to applicable SIPs.
This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from
existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained in a SIP.

For MVEBs to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s
adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).  In certain instances,
the Transportation Conformity Rule allows areas to forgo establishment
of a MVEB where it is demonstrated that the regional motor vehicle
emissions for a particular pollutant or precursor are an insignificant
contributor to the air quality problem in an area.  The general criteria
for insignificance determinations can be found in 40 CFR 93.109(f).
Insignificance determinations are based on a number of factors,
including the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in context of the
total SIP inventory; the current state of air quality as determined by
monitoring data for the relevant NAAQS; the absence of SIP motor vehicle
control measures; and the historical trends and future projections of
the growth of motor vehicle emissions.  EPA’s rationale for providing
for insignificance determinations is described in the July 1, 2004,
revision to the Transportation Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004.
Specifically, the rationale is explained on page 40061 under the
subsection XXIII.B. entitled, “Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle
Emissions.”  Any insignificance determination under review of EPA is
subject to the adequacy and approval process for EPA's action on the
SIP.

II.  Administrative Requirements for Making Insignificance Findings

EPA has followed the process for reviewing the submitted SIP and
determining if an insignificance finding for Motor Vehicle Emissions is
warranted in accordance with the procedures listed in the January 2008
Conformity Regulations contained in 40 CFR 93.102(b) - “Geographical
applicability” and 40 CFR 93.118(f) - “Adequacy review process for
implementation plan submissions.”

On March 8, 2012, the State of West Virginia formally submitted a
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for West Virginia Portion of
the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (hereafter the
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan).  The SIP included a request
for a finding of insignificance by EPA for motor vehicle emissions for
nitrogen oxides (NOx), direct particulate matter (PM), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2).

III.  Evaluation of the Request for an Insignificance Finding for Motor
Vehicle Emissions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
the West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH  1997 PM2.5
Nonattainment Area Submitted By The West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection

In this TSD, EPA is evaluating the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection’s request for an insignificance finding for
motor vehicle emissions associated with the Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan contained in the submittal.  EPA is using the
evaluation criteria detailed in the Transportation Conformity Rule, 40
CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv), 93.102(b)(2)(v), 93.102(b)(3), and 93.118(e)4
through 93.118(e)5.  The evaluation is presented below.

Review of the Request for Insignificance Finding of Motor Vehicle
Emissions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West
Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

Transportation Conformity Rule

40 CFR Part 93, 93.118

Review Criteria

Was the Criterion Satisfied?  If Yes, How was this Criteria Satisfied?

93.102(b)(2)(iv)	Has the EPA and the State made a finding that NOx is an
insignificant contributor to the direct mobile PM emissions or does the
implementation plan fail to establish a NOx budget as part of the PM 2.5
maintenance strategy?

	The State has requested that NOx be found an insignificant contributor
to the mobile PM emissions.  This request is based on the fact that
Onroad mobile source NOx constitutes less than twelve and a half percent
of the area’s total NOx emission in the 2015 and 2022 horizon years
due to continuing fleet turnover even with future vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) growth included in the emission projections.

93.102(b)(2)(v)	Has the EPA or State made a finding that Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) or Ammonia (NH(3)) as
precursors to be a significant contributor to the mobile PM emissions or
does the implementation plan  submission establish a  budget for VOCs,
SOx or NH(3) as part of a PM 2.5  maintenance strategy?	Neither EPA nor
the State has made any findings that VOCs, SO2, or NH(3) is a
significant contributor to the PM2.5 mobile emissions, and therefore, it
has not been included in the SIP.  Onroad mobile source SO2 constitutes
less than 0.1% of the area’s total SO2 emissions in the 2015 and 2022
horizon years.

93.102(b)(3)

	Has the EPA or the State made a finding that direct PM is a significant
contributor to the PM mobile emissions or does the implementation plan
establish a budget that includes direct PM as part of a PM 2.5
maintenance strategy?

	The State has requested that direct PM be found an insignificant
contributor to the mobile PM emissions.  This request is based on the
fact that Onroad mobile source PM2.5 constitutes less than two and a
half percent of the area’s total PM2.5 emissions in the 2015 and 2022
horizon years due to continuing fleet turnover even with future VMT
growth included in the emission projections.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i)	Was the submitted revised plan endorsed by the
Governor (or his or her designee) and subject to a State public hearing?

	Yes.  The submitted Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan was
endorsed and submitted as a SIP revision by the Governor’s designee,
the Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection.  A public hearing on the SIP proposal was held.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)	Before the maintenance plan was submitted to EPA,
did consultation between federal, State and local agencies occur; was
full implementation plan documentation provided to EPA, and was EPA’s
stated concerns, if any, addressed?	Yes.  Consultation has occurred
among all required Federal, State, and local agencies.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)	Were the MVEBs clearly identified and precisely
quantified?	As there was a request for an insignificance finding, no
MVEBs were identified in the SIP.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)	Are the motor vehicle emissions, when considered
together with all other emission reductions, consistent with applicable
requirements for maintenance strategies?	EPA believes that motor vehicle
emissions can be declared insignificant contributors because in
comparing the motor vehicle emissions to the overall emissions
inventory, the motor vehicle emissions comprise only a small portion of
the over PM2.5 emissions for the nonattainment area and are projected to
continue to significantly decline due to fleet turnover.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)	Is the motor vehicle emissions consistent with and
clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in
the Plan?

	EPA believes that the motor vehicle emissions have clearly related to
the emissions inventory in the SIP submittal.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)	Revisions to previously submitted maintenance
plan: explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets
and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any
changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101 for definition);
and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related
to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).	N/A

This is a new NAAQS that the area was designated as nonattainment for
and this is the initial control strategy SIP submitted by the state to
address the new NAAQS.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5)	Did they provide and we review public comments and the
State’s responses to those comments with the submitted control
strategy SIP?	There were no comments on the SIP related to the proposed
insignificance finding request.

IV.  Findings

Based upon our review and evaluation of the motor vehicle emissions
contained in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West
Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,
EPA finds that the SIP submittal meets the criteria in the
transportation conformity rules for an insignificance finding for NOx,
PM2.5, and SO2 contribution from motor vehicles.  Weighing all the
factors for an insignificance finding, particularly the minor
contribution of mobile source PM2.5, and SO2, EPA has determined that
the PM2.5 and SO2 contribution from motor vehicles emissions to the
Annual PM2.5 pollution for the West Virginia portion of the
Nonattainment Area are insignificant.  With respect to transportation
conformity, the larger NOx contribution of less than twelve and a half
percent of the area’s total NOx emission in the 2015 and 2022 horizon
years requires further justification to request an insignificant
finding.  40 CFR 93.109(f) bases insignificance on emission percentages,
emission trends, and the effectiveness of the pollutant in forming PM.
For the Wheeling area, there is a significant emission decrease
projected for the highway sector and total emissions inventory in years
2008, 2015, and 2022.  Given the relatively small contribution of the
highway emissions to the total SIP inventory, highway emissions are not
likely to contribute significantly to local PM2.5.  Additionally, NOx
reductions are significantly less effective in reducing PM
concentrations than are reductions in direct PM and SO2.  Consequently,
NOx percent emission contribution may be higher than direct PM and SO2
without adversely affecting air quality.  Based on the analysis of local
historical trends and growth patterns in order to develop the long range
transportation plan and transportation improvement program for
transportation conformity purposes, there is no reason to expect highway
motor vehicle emissions growth that would lead to a violation of the
PM2.5 standard.  Although vehicle miles traveled increases, NOx
emissions decrease dramatically from 4505.4 tons/year in 2002 to 665.7
tons/year in 2030.  This demonstrates that highway emissions will remain
insignificant in the future.  Upon review of the further justification
for requesting an insignificant finding for NOx, EPA has determined that
NOx contribution from motor vehicles emissions to the Annual PM2.5
pollution for the West Virginia portion of the Nonattainment Area is
insignificant.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65826-65827]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-E-2595]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; OZEMPIC

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for OZEMPIC and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by January
28, 2020. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 27, 2020. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before January 28, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of January 28, 2020. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket
No.FDA-2018-E-2595 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; OZEMPIC.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the

information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The
Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.
10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product OZEMPIC
(semaglutide). OZEMPIC is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise
to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term
restoration application for OZEMPIC (U.S. Patent No. 8,129,343) from
Novo Nordisk A/S, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in
determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated September 18, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of OZEMPIC represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that
FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
OZEMPIC is 3,336 days. Of this time, 2,970 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
October 19, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date
the investigational new drug application became effective was on
October 19, 2008.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December
5, 2016. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for OZEMPIC (NDA 209637) was initially submitted on
December 5, 2016.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 5, 2017. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 209637 was approved on December
5, 2017.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,040 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-25850 Filed 11-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7492-7493]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Based on the agency's evaluation, NHTSA denies a petition for
rulemaking from Mr. David K. Aberizk, P.E., of Integrated Consultants
Incorporated, who requests the development of safety standards for a
driver-activated vehicle regenerative braking interface with distinct
rear lighting indication. The petitioner claims that the recommended
changes to the relevant safety standards would allow vehicle
manufacturers to better utilize the regenerator technology to increase
vehicle efficiency. NHTSA finds that some features of the suggested
concept are not prohibited by existing Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) and notes that Mr. Aberizk did not demonstrate how
the other features address a motor vehicle safety need. FMVSS Nos. 108
and 135 currently specify performance requirements relevant to certain
permitted technologies identified in the petition.

DATES: February 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lisa Gavin, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Petition
II. Agency Analysis
III. Agency Decision

I. Summary of Petition

    On April 14, 2012, David K. Aberizk, P.E., petitioned NHTSA
requesting development of safety standards for a driver-activated
vehicle regenerative braking interface with a distinct rear indicator
lamp.\1\ On July 14, 2013, Mr. Aberizk submitted additional information
in the format of a petition for rulemaking. The agency considers these
two submissions as one petition for rulemaking because both pertain to
the same concept of driver-activated vehicle regenerative braking.
Specifically, Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA define the location and
geometric parameters for a brake control device and the actions
required for safe operation. Additionally, Mr. Aberizk requests that
NHTSA define the parameters for a rear lamp to signal vehicle slowing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Original petition available at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0010-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Aberizk states that regenerator technology is currently
integrated as a component of the conventional friction braking system
in electric or hybrid electric motor vehicles, which limits the
potential of the device to recover energy. He claims that hybrid and
electric vehicles with driver-activated regenerative braking systems
(RBS) increases overall efficiency by 6 percent over existing RBS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mr. Aberizk does not specify whether Graph 1 in Appendix A-1
of the additional data collected and reported July 14, 2013 refers
to the overall efficiency of the vehicle at turning power into
movement, or to the efficiency of the regenerative braking system in
particular. As discussed further below, however, it is irrelevant to
the agency's determination of whether to begin rulemaking to
establish a new FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Aberizk recommends that the agency establish a new safety
standard for regenerator engagement to adopt performance requirements,
which he believes will interest automakers in embracing increased
efficiency concepts, such as his operator-initiated slowing design. Mr.
Aberizk provided graphic illustrations showing potential locations for
an activation control device on the steering wheel or gear selector,
and an expanded center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) assembly. In his
first information submission, Mr. Aberizk refers the reader to the
Integrated Consultants Incorporated Web site for additional details on
the driver-activated RBS empirical test findings and his U.S. patent,
Vehicle Regenerative Deceleration Actuator and Indicator System and
Method.
    In his supplemental submission, Mr. Aberizk states that current RBS
technologies underutilize the potential of brake regenerators to
increase vehicle efficiency. With an operator-initiated slowing feature
added to existing RBSs, Mr. Aberizk claims that overall efficiency
increases by 6 percent in hybrid and electric vehicles, and by at least
2.5 percent for mild-hybrid vehicles. As presented, the slowing concept
relies on the driver to manually engage the regenerator to slow the
vehicle, independent of the brake pedal application. Finally, Mr.
Aberizk included a summary of the comment and the attachment he
submitted to NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for model years 2017
and beyond.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mr. Aberizk's comment to that NPRM can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of Petition

    Although the submission met the requirements to be accepted as a
rulemaking petition, NHTSA does not endorse specific products, designs,
or equipment, as Mr. Aberizk requests. NHTSA develops and issues
Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to reduce crashes,
deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes.\4\ Motor
vehicle safety standards are primarily performance standards, intended
to allow manufacturers to choose which products, designs, and equipment
best satisfy the requirements. That said, in the interest of
completeness, the agency conducted a technical review of Mr. Aberizk's
petition. Because the petition involves topics related to multiple
FMVSSs, the agency's technical review of the slowing device was
separate from its review of the illumination indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 49 U.S. Code Sec.  30101, Purpose and Policy, section
(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowing Device

    Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA define the location and geometric
parameters for an operator activated slowing control device with a
human-machine interface required for safe operation. Mr. Aberizk offers
anecdotal observations and evaluations, but did not submit quantitative
data. For vehicles configured with the slowing device, he claims a
`noticeable' increase in range for test distances of 15 miles or
greater, as well as a 50 to 75 percent reduction in brake pedal usage.
The petition does not, however, assess how these factors, if accurate,
would lead to safety benefits attributable to the driver-activated
slowing concept. Additionally, NHTSA is not aware of any data that
establish a correlation between

enhanced RBS performance and reduced crash rates.
    Perhaps more relevant, however, we note that a manually-enhanced
feature to increase recovered braking energy is not prohibited by FMVSS
No. 135, the light vehicle braking standard that includes requirements
for the service brake system, associated parking brake system, and
optional regenerative braking systems. FMVSS No. 135 defines RBS as an
electrical energy system that is installed in an electric vehicle for
recovering or dissipating kinetic energy and which uses the propulsion
motor(s) as a retarder for partial braking of the electric vehicle
while returning electrical energy to the propulsion battery(s) or
dissipating electrical energy. FMVSS No. 135 expressly states that for
an electric vehicle equipped with RBS, the RBS is considered to be part
of the service brake system, if it is automatically activated by an
application of the service brake control, if there is no means provided
for the driver to disconnect or otherwise deactivate it, and if it is
activated in all transmission positions, including neutral. For an
electric vehicle that is equipped with antilock brake system (ABS) and
RBS that is part of the service brake system, the ABS must control the
RBS. A vehicle equipped with or without RBS must meet the stopping
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 135.
    Information compiled by the Federal government estimates the
combined city/highway driving energy recovered by regenerative braking
to be 5 to 9 percent.\5\ Mr. Aberizk claims that vehicles with driver-
activated RBS would incrementally increase the energy recovered by an
additional 2.5 to 6 percent. Although the amount of energy recovered
may be considered economically beneficial, it is not a safety concern
that warrants the adoption of a safety standard. Mr. Aberizk extolled
the fuel economy benefits of the technology in support of his petition,
but fuel economy benefits are not relevant to whether a technology will
improve safety. Moreover, even in the CAFE program, NHTSA does not
mandate the use of particular technologies. Like the FMVSSs, CAFE
standards are performance standards. Manufacturers are free to choose
whatever technologies they wish, and NHTSA does not specify particular
technologies in that context either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-hev.shtml (2% to 4%
highway driving and 8% to 14% city driving).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illumination Indicator

    In the petition, Mr. Aberizk also requests that NHTSA define the
parameters for an additional rear lamp to signal vehicle slowing.
Because we are denying the petition with respect to braking, we need
not address the part of the petition related to lighting because
without a new brake requirement, there is no need for a new lighting
requirement.
    In order for NHTSA to consider establishing a new safety standard,
the agency must determine that a safety need exists and that the
suggested concept will reduce the crash risk. For example, NHTSA
completed rulemaking action to require center high mounted stop lamps
as standard lighting equipment after extensive research that quantified
the crash problem and estimated the safety impact and the effectiveness
of the new equipment.\6\ Hence, a petitioner bears the burden of
providing data to justify the safety need for the recommended
amendments to the relevant safety standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 48 FR 48235, October 18, 1983.
    \7\ See Statement of Policy published in 63 FR 59482, on
November 4, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Mr Aberizk claims that development of safety standards
will keep product liability of an operator-initiated slowing system
neutral to the industry. Because NHTSA regulates motor vehicle safety
and not tort liability, the agency refrains from drawing legal
conclusions about Mr. Aberizk's operator-initiated slowing device.

III. Agency Decision

    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition for rulemaking. NHTSA believes that the current
requirements specified in FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 do not prohibit
certain features suggested in the petition. The petitioner did not
demonstrate a safety need or substantiate claims of reduced crash risk
associated with the petitioned concept. Therefore, NHTSA denies David
K. Aberizk's petition.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-02763 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 40558-40559]
[DOCID:fr15jy08-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. P-400-051]

Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

July 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-400-051.
    c. Date Filed: June 26, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    e. Name of Project: Ames Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on Lake Fork, Howard
Fork, and South Fork of the San Miguel River, in San Miguel County,
about 6 miles north of Telluride, Colorado. The Ames Project occupies
99 acres of the Uncompahgre National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contact: Randy Rhodes, Public Service Company of
Colorado, 4653 Table Mountain Drive, Golden Colorado 80403; telephone
(720) 497-2123.
    i. FERC Contact: David Turner<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The existing project uses water that
originates in two separate subbasins (Lake Fork and Howard's Fork) of
the South Fork San Miguel River. The existing project, from upstream to
downstream along Lake Fork and Howard's Fork, respectively, consists of
the following: (1) A 44-acre reservoir (Hope Lake) that has 2,000 acre-
feet of active storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface
elevation of 11,910 feet; (2) a 150-foot-long, 20-foot high rock-
filled, timber dam (Hope Lake dam), with a 816-foot-long, 5-foot-wide,
and 6-foot-high rock tunnel that releases water from Hope Lake to Lake
Fork Creek; (3) a 138-acre reservoir (Trout Lake) with 2,500 acre-feet
of active storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface elevation
of 9,700 feet; (4) a 570-foot-long, 30-foot-high earth-filled dam
(Trout Lake dam) with a 42-inch-diameter, concrete encased steel pipe
outlet that extends through the embankment; (5) a 12,650-foot-long, 42-
inch to 26-inch-diameter steel pipe penstock that conveys water from
Trout Lake to the Ames powerhouse; (6) a 260-foot-long, 6-foot-high
earth-filled and timber crib diversion dam on the Howards Fork, with a
concrete inlet structure, which diverts water from a sluiceway
constructed through the embankment via a manually-operated 9-foot-wide
steel slide gate at the downstream end of the sluiceway; (7) a 4,500-
foot-long, 36-inch-diameter welded steel penstock; (8) a 2,000-foot-
long, 18-inch-diameter steel penstock; (9) the 44-foot-long, 54-foot-
wide, stone masonry Ames powerhouse that contains one 3.6 megawatt (MW)
generating unit; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project is
operated both as a base-load plant and a peaking plant depending on the
time of the year; the applicant does not propose any changes to project
operations. The applicant is proposing new recreation facilities at
Trout Lake, along with additions and deletions to the project boundary
due to new land surveys and easements
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
may be made as appropriate. For example, issuance of the Ready for
Environmental Analysis Notice is based on the assumption that there
will be no additional information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Milestone                              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Deficiency Determination      July 2008.
 Letter and Issuance of Additional
 Information Requests (AIRs).
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for  August 2008.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of Interventions,                  October 2008.
 Recommendations, Terms and Conditions,
 and Fishway Prescriptions.
Reply Comments Due......................  December 2008.
Issuance of Draft EA....................  January 2009.
Comments on Draft EA Due................  February 2009.
Filing of Modified Terms and Conditions.  April 2009.
Issuance of Final EA....................  July 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16047 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74718-74719]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-217-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Pipelines.
    Description: Petition of Kinder Morgan Pipelines for Limited Waiver
of Order No. 787 and for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 11/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20141125-5401.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-240-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Energy Services Company, WPX Energy
Appalachia, LLC, WPX Energy Keystone, LLC, WPX Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of WPX Energy Appalachia, LLC, WPX
Energy Keystone, LLC, WPX Energy Marketing, LLC, and Southwestern
Energy Services Company for Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release and
Certain Other Regulations and Policies and Related Tariff Provisions.
    Filed Date: 12/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141203-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-241-000.
    Applicants: Rice Drilling B LLC, Rice Energy Marketing LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of Rice Drilling B LLC and Rice Energy
Marketing LLC for Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release Regulations,
Policies and Related Tariff Provisions, and Request for Shortened
Comment Period and Expedited Treatment.
    Filed Date: 12/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141203-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-242-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204:<PHONE_NUMBER> MOPS
Abandonment to be effective 1/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141204-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-243-000
    Applicants: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: ATC Rate
Adjustment 2014 to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141204-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-244-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate
Filing--December 2014--LER 0222 Att A to be effective 12/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141204-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-245-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Volume No. 2--MEX
Gas Supply, S.L. SP307989 to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141204-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-246-000.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Posting Offers to
Purchase Capacity to be effective 1/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141204-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-247-000.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate
Filing to

Amend LER 5680's Attachment A_12-05-14 to be effective 12/5/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-248-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Volume No. 2--
Cargill Incorporated SP308194 to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5308.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-249-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Average Thermal
Content Adjustment Filing to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20141208-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-883-001.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Date Fix for Compliance
to Show Cause to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-885-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance--Date Fix
for Order to Show Cause to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-896-001.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Date Fix Compliance for
Order to Show Cause to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-47-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Negotiated & Non-
Conforming Service Agmt--WestSide Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5260.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-55-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Negotiated & Non-
Conforming Service Agmts--West Side Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141205-5261.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29302 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12086-12087]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos., 7920-004, 7921-006, and 7922-004]

Alden Hydro, LLC, Tridam Energy LLC; Notice of Transfer of
Exemption

    By letter filed September 1, 2015, Brendan Finnegan, Owner, Tridam
Energy LLC, informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing
for

the Waterloom Falls Project No. 7920, originally issued March 11,
1985,\1\ the Otis Falls Project No. 7921, originally issued March 11,
1985,\2\ and the Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7922, originally issued
March 11, 1985,\3\ have been transferred to Tridam Energy LLC,
effective June 2014. The projects are located on the Souhegan River in
Hillsboro County, New Hampshire. The transfer of an exemption does not
require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of a Small
Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Greenwood, 30
FERC ] 62,256 (1985).
    \2\ Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of a Small
Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Green, 30
FERC ] 62,267 (1985).
    \3\ Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of a Small
Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Greenwood, 30
FERC ] 62,257 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tridam Energy, LLC is now the exemptee of the Waterloom Falls
Project No. 7920, the Otis Falls Project No. 7921, and the Chamberlain
Falls Project No. 7922. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr.
Brendan Finnegan, Owner, Tridam Energy LLC, 251 Heath Street, Apt #105,
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 22, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03841 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, July 25, 2016 3:25 PM
To:
Doug Allen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ron McLeod<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Janzen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke Oven ICR method questions

Hello all  -  Sorry for the delay in this response, but I was out on vacation last week and did not hear back from measurement people in time before I left for the day/week.

We are fine with your approach. Please also include a detailed description of the procedure for the combined analysis in your analytical report.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Doug Allen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:05 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ron McLeod<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Janzen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Coke Oven ICR method questions

Donna  -  EQ is performing the testing at AK Steel Middletown for the Coke Oven ICR and I had a sampling method question.  In Table 1-B of Enclosure 2, it says we can perform CARB 428 & 429 together for the semi-volatile HAPs.  I wanted to see if it was approved to combine these into one train if we spiked the traps for both semi-volatiles and dioxin/furans.  We would use acetone, methylene chloride, and toluene as our solvent rinses (acetone and methylene chloride in one bottle and toluene in a second) and water as our impinger solution.

Please let us know if this approach is acceptable or if there was anything we should modify.

Thanks
Doug

Doug Allen
Environmental Quality Management
1800 Carillon Boulevard
Cincinnati, OH 45240
(513) 825-7500 ext. 7313
(513) 505-6697 (cell)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49219-49220]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2304-000]

Oildale Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Oildale Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 31, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by

clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also
available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference
Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site
that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document
is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 11, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20196 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75144-75145]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD15-12-000]

Imperial Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination
of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On November 26, 2014, the Imperial Irrigation District filed a
notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility,
pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by
section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA).
The proposed Drop 2 on Central Drain In-Conduit Hydroelectric Project
would have an installed capacity of 300 kilowatts (kW) and would be
located on the existing Central Drain approximately 250 feet upstream
from its convergence with the Alamo River. This conduit transports
water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial purposes. The project
would be located near the city of Holtville in Imperial County,
California.
    Applicant Contact: Carl Stills, 1651 West Main Street, El Centro,
CA 92243, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A proposed 27.21-foot-long, 14-foot-wide
open concrete canal intake structure with one 10-foot wide gate; (2) a
proposed 15- by 20-foot powerhouse containing one turbine generator
unit with an installed capacity of 300 kW; (3) the proposed

200-foot-long, 14-foot-wide open canal tailrace structure which returns
the water into the Alamo River approximately 150 feet downstream of the
convergence of the Central Drain and Alamo River; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual
generating capacity of 1,292 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Satisfies
       Statutory provision                Description           (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by     The conduit the facility           Y
 HREA.                              uses is a tunnel,
                                    canal, pipeline,
                                    aqueduct, flume, ditch,
                                    or similar manmade
                                    water conveyance that
                                    is operated for the
                                    distribution of water
                                    for agricultural,
                                    municipal, or
                                    industrial consumption
                                    and not primarily for
                                    the generation of
                                    electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by  The facility is                    Y
 HREA.                              constructed, operated,
                                    or maintained for the
                                    generation of electric
                                    power and uses for such
                                    generation only the
                                    hydroelectric potential
                                    of a non-federally
                                    owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended    The facility has an                Y
 by HREA.                           installed capacity that
                                    does not exceed 5
                                    megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended   On or before August 9,             Y
 by HREA.                           2013, the facility is
                                    not licensed, or
                                    exempted from the
                                    licensing requirements
                                    of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-12-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29539 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P