[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6607-6610]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0036, formerly CGD07-122]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulation; Port Everglades, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends the anchorage regulations for Port
Everglades, Florida. The amendment modifies the current anchorage area
by eliminating that portion of the anchorage closest to sensitive coral
reef areas, expands that portion of the anchorage area that poses less
risk to these areas, and limits the amount of time a vessel may remain
in the anchorage area. These changes ensure

all vessels have fair access to the anchorage area, and provide a
higher degree of vessel and environmental safety by reducing the
possibility of vessels grounding in sensitive coral reef areas.

DATES: This rule is effective March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [USCG-2007-0036, formerly CGD07-122] and are
available for inspection or copying at United States Coast Guard Sector
Miami, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, Florida between 8 a.m. and
3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Chris Svencer, United States
Coast Guard Sector Miami Waterways Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On October 22, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Anchorage Regulation; Port Everglades, FL in the
Federal Register (72 FR 59491). We received 10 letters commenting on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    During the last ten (10) years, nine (9) known vessel groundings
and six (6) known vessel anchor mishaps have occurred during attempted
or actual use of the Port Everglades anchorage areas. Anchoring mishaps
include both misplacement of the anchor itself and/or laying of the
anchor chain on the sensitive coral reefs. The east coast of Florida is
susceptible to severe and erratic weather, and mariners who are not
vigilant can find themselves in extreme situations. Adverse weather
conditions, proximity to the reef, congestion in the anchorage, poor
navigation and seamanship were contributing factors to the groundings
and anchoring mishaps in the Port Everglades anchorage and surrounding
vicinity. The current anchorage regulation is published in 33 CFR
110.186. This rule is needed to strengthen existing anchoring
requirements and guidelines in order to provide a higher degree of
protection to the coastal area and sensitive benthic coral reef
ecosystems, as well as to provide a safer anchorage for mariners. This
rule re-designates the anchorage areas to account for anchor position
and chain lay and limit the amount of time vessels may remain at
anchorage. The Coast Guard has also researched alternative solutions
for restructuring the anchorage. These alternatives have included:
change nothing and continue to use the current anchorage; create
anchorage circles to control the location of vessels in the anchorage;
and remove the anchorage completely. The groundings and anchor mishaps
have had a negative impact on the sensitive coral reefs and prompts the
Coast Guard to alter the current anchorage area. Creating anchorage
circles for precision anchorage does not eliminate the threat to the
local reefs due to changing weather conditions that may cause vessels,
even if properly anchored, to drag over the coral reefs to the west.
Lastly, while removing the anchorage altogether would arguably be best
for the environment, this option is not economically feasible due to
the legitimate need for commercial vessels to anchor while awaiting
berth in Port Everglades.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    On October 22, 2007 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed changing the location of the commercial
anchorage located offshore from Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. Ten letters were received in response to the NPRM. All ten
letters were in favor of moving the anchorage into deeper waters to
protect the environment. Within the ten letters there were numerous
different comments addressing the new location of the anchorage.
    Three comments addressed moving the anchorage either farther to the
south or farther offshore from the Port Everglades main ship channel.
Both of these options were extensively explored by the Harbor Safety
Committee. Due to a restricted area designated by 33 CFR 334.580, the
area south of Port Everglades does not permit anchoring of vessels.
This area is immediately south of the main ship channel entrance and
continues south for approximately 4 nautical miles. Moving the
anchorage further offshore than proposed by this rule creates a
potentially untenable and even dangerous situation for many commercial
vessels awaiting berths in Port Everglades. The further the vessels are
offshore the deeper the water they must anchor in. Beyond the
reasonable depth that the revised anchorage proposes, many of the
commercial vessels calling on Port Everglades will have insufficient
anchor chain to properly scope to the standard 5 to 7 times the water
depth to provide sufficient holding, thus presenting a risk to the
reefs, other vessels in the anchorage, and even the vessel deploying
their anchor.
    Two comments addressed installing a mooring buoy system for vessels
in the anchorage. The installation of mooring buoys is extremely costly
and once installed require continual maintenance to be effective. One
of the comments also addressed funding the buoys by taxing each vessel
that uses the port. This option was reviewed and considered by the
Harbor Safety Committee but was not a viable option. At this time the
committee is unaware of any federal, state, or local government agency
willing to authorize, fund, and maintain the mooring buoys. If at a
later time a single or joint entity would fund this project, the Harbor
Safety Committee would readdress this issue at that time. The solution
to move the anchorage offshore to its new location is a step in the
right direction to ensure the safety of our reefs and shores.
    Another comment addressed better educating mariners regarding the
location of the sensitive reefs in the area. In cooperation with the
anchorage relocation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has added ``Co'', the charting designation for a coral
bottom, on all charts that depict the area offshore of Fort Lauderdale.
This in coordination with increased information in the Coast Pilot will
assist mariners in understanding the location of reefs in the area.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to utilize
the anchorage area outside Port Everglades, Florida. This rule will not
have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the same reasons given above in the ``Regulatory Evaluation''
section of this preamble.
    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. If you think that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this
rule will have a significant impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this
rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning compliance, please
contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Chris Svencer, Coast Guard Sector
Miami, Waterways Management Division at<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule. Even though a
categorical exclusion may be used the Coast Guard found good reason to
further investigate the effects the anchorage area modification would
have on the environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Furthermore, as part of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR
part 402, 16 U.S.C. 1536), the U.S. Coast Guard opened consultation
with a number of stakeholders. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have reviewed all
restructuring plans and believe the proposed action would not likely
affect the West Indian Manatee, Johnson's Seagrass, Smalltooth Sawfish,
and all local turtle species because the project does not have any
elements with the potential to affect these listed species. NOAA also
found that the restructuring into deeper waters, farther away from the
easternmost reef, is likely to have an indirect beneficial effect on
Elkhorn and Staghorn coral by potentially reducing vessel groundings
and anchor damage that have adversely affected corals and other
important near shore benthic resources in the project area.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071,;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.186 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3) through (6),
and adding paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.186  Port Everglades, Florida.

    (a) The anchorage grounds. The anchorage grounds, the center of
which is located approximately two and one half miles northeast of the
entrance to Port Everglades, is an area bounded by a line connecting
points with the following North American Datum 83 coordinates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-08'26.934'' N..........................  080-04'28.240'' W
26-08'08.560'' N..........................  080-04'16.158'' W
26-07'56.000'' N..........................  080-04'17.486'' W
26-07'56.000'' N..........................  080-02'42.623'' W
26-07'19.500'' N..........................  080-02'53.153'' W
26-07'19.500'' N..........................  080-04'28.800'' W
26-06'35.160'' N..........................  080-04'28.800'' W
26-06'35.160'' N..........................  080-04'38.694'' W
26-08'26.934'' N..........................  080-04'28.240'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) * * *
    (3) All vessels within the designated anchorage area shall maintain
a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed deck officer proficient in
English, monitoring VHF-FM channel 16. This individual shall confirm
that the ship's crew performs frequent checks of the vessel's position
to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.
    (4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage
area provided that: such anchoring does not interfere with the
operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor
and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging
over reefs.
    (5) No vessel may anchor in a ``dead ship'' status (i.e. propulsion
or control unavailable for normal operations) without the prior
approval of the Captain of the Port. Vessels experiencing casualties
such as a main propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment
malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion engine
repairs or maintenance, shall immediately notify the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port via Coast Guard Sector Miami on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more
than 72 hours without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. To
obtain this approval, contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, via
the Port Everglades Harbor Master, on VHF-FM Channel 14.
    (7) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage
area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of
adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest
of port safety or security.
    (8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances
outside the anchorage area shall shift to new positions within the
anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases.
    (9) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United
States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami,
Florida, may direct relocation of any vessel anchored within the
anchorage area. Once directed, such vessel must get underway at once or
signal for a tug, and must change position as directed.

    Dated: January 10, 2008.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-1757 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31427-31430]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11028]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-10008-68-Region 9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the JASCO Chemical Corp.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the JASCO Chemical Corporation Superfund
Site (Site) located in Mountain View, California, from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the
State of California, through the Department of Toxic Substances
Control, have determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 25, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Superfund Project Manager: Eric Canteenwala,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily
suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
following repositories:
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket,
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Canteenwala, Superfund Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (SFD-7-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 9 announces its intent to delete the JASCO Chemical
Corporation Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on
this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of

sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the
NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of California, through DTSC, has concurred with
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a local
newspaper, the Mountain View Voice. The newspaper notice announces the
30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete
the Site from the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    If comments on this document are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
Site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions. EPA may initiate further action
to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information
becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site (CERCLIS ID #CAD009103318) is located at 1710 Villa Street
in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California and is
2.05 acres in size. JASCO Chemical Corporation (JASCO) repackaged and
formulated bulk chemical products on site from 1976 to 1995. Chemicals
were unloaded from rail cars and stored in eight underground storage
tanks that polluted the surrounding soil and groundwater. Volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and hydrocarbons, such as trichloroethane,
acetone, creosote, and methylene chloride, were detected in shallow
groundwater at the Site starting in 1984. On June 24, 1988, the Site
was proposed for NPL listing (53 FR 23988). On October 4, 1989, EPA
added the Site to the NPL (54 FR 41015).

Ongoing Development

    Historically, the area surrounding the site was industrial with
many different electronics and semiconductor manufacturers. It is now
within a residential area and zoned for future residential use, with
the Southern Pacific Railroad running along the property's northern
boundary. The site is currently owned by the Prometheus Real Estate
Group, which plans to redevelop the property into an apartment complex.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Remedial Investigation (RI) was completed in 1991 and included
investigation of groundwater and soil. A citizen complaint of solvent
dumping resulted in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) requesting the installation of monitoring wells to determine if
the groundwater had been contaminated. EPA drilled additional
groundwater monitoring wells and collected soil samples to define the
nature and extent of contamination at the site.
    EPA completed the Feasibility Study (FS) in 1991. The FS evaluated
six alternatives for groundwater remediation and five alternatives for
soil remediation. The groundwater alternatives were: (1) No further
action; (2) discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); (3)
UV oxidation; (4) liquid phase carbon adsorption; (5) air stripping;
and (6) biological treatment followed by carbon adsorption. The soil
remediation alternatives were (1) no further action; (2) off-site
treatment; (3) enhanced biological treatment; (4) X-19 biological
treatment; and (5) Excalibur process or soil washing involving
catalytic ozone oxidation.

Selected Remedy

    The Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on September 30, 1992. A
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GETS) with air stripping
and liquid phase carbon adsorption that discharged into a POTW was
selected as the groundwater remedy. Ex-situ bioremediation was selected
for the soil remedy. An interim removal action completed in 1988
removed 572 cubic feet of contaminated soil down to the

water table (22-28 ft. below ground surface). A dual vacuum extraction/
soil vapor extraction system (DVE) was installed for dual remediation
of contaminated soil and groundwater. This remedy included
modifications to and continued operation of the existing GETS and
implementation of a restrictive easement to prohibit use of onsite
shallow groundwater. Institutional controls on the site prohibited the
use of groundwater until cleanup levels were achieved.
    On September 13, 2002, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) that modified three elements of the remedy. (1)
Treated groundwater was discharged to surface water under a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the
RWQCB instead of Mountain View's POTW. In order to meet the more
stringent requirements under the NPDES permit the groundwater treatment
system was modified. (2) Soil treatment in the drainage swale area at
the rear of the site was modified to allow in situ soil vapor
extraction. (3) Institutional control requirements were modified to add
a post cleanup deed restriction to address the impacts of an offsite
tetrachloroethene (PCE) plume not considered part of the Site. EPA
issued a second ESD on September 26, 2012 that removed the requirement
for the deed restriction to address the offsite PCE plume and clarified
that this was no longer a component of the Superfund remedy for the
Site.
    The remedial action objectives (RAO) for the remedy selected in the
1992 ROD were to prevent further migration of contaminants into
groundwater by treating Site soils; prevent possible future exposure of
the public to contaminated groundwater; and prevent contamination of
the drinking water aquifer by treating both contaminated soil and
groundwater. The 1992 ROD listed cleanup criteria for twenty different
VOCs in soil and groundwater. The cleanup levels for many of these
contaminants were more protective than the groundwater Maximum
Contaminant Level as specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Response Actions

    The remedy selected in the 1992 ROD was implemented beginning in
1994. Activities implemented pursuant to the ROD, as modified by the
2002 ESD included: (1) Removal of eight underground storage tanks (UST)
from the Site and ex-situ bioremediation of the soil stockpile
generated from UST removal; (2) installation of GETS equipped with a
liquid-phase carbon adsorption system that discharged to a POTW; (3) a
dual vacuum extraction/soil vapor extraction system installed for dual
remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater in the drainage swale
area; (4) two monitoring wells were converted to DVE wells in response
to the appearance of PCE in groundwater. These converted wells remained
in operation until April 1998 when the expanded GETS was completed; (5)
Implementation of Institutional Controls on the Site in the form of a
restrictive easement recorded in 1993, which prohibited the use of
groundwater until cleanup levels were achieved. The Site reached
construction complete status on September 20, 2002 and a Preliminary
Close Out Report (PCOR) was prepared at that time.

Cleanup Levels

    Cleanup levels for both soil and groundwater treatment were reached
in 2002. The GETS was shut off in 2002 and groundwater monitoring ended
in 2010. The 2012 Five Year Review (FYR) concluded that all
contaminants of concern, except for PCE and tricholoroethylene (TCE),
were below the maximum contaminant levels for 18 consecutive quarters.
PCE and TCE were determined to be related to an offsite plume not
related to the Site. The EPA determined that the RAO (i.e., prevent any
further migration of contaminants into groundwater by treating Site
soils) had been attained at the Site based on confirmatory samples
taken of soil contaminants after the excavation of the USTs and in
2002. The results were compared against both EPA Region 9 residential
soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for dermal exposure and the 2012 EPA
Regional Screening Levels for soils.

Operation and Maintenance

    There are no ongoing monitoring activities for soil or groundwater.
The 2012 ESD removed the requirement for institutional controls related
to the CERCLA remedy. An environmental covenant related to the offsite
PCE plume was signed by the property owner and the RWQCB, was recorded
by Santa Clara County, and remains in effect. Because cleanup is now
complete at the Site, the 2002 Site-related deed restriction was
terminated, groundwater monitoring was discontinued, the monitoring
wells have been properly closed under Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) permit, and monitoring and maintenance have been discontinued.

Five-Year Reviews

    EPA conducts reviews every five years to determine if remedies are
functioning as intended and if they continue to be protective of human
health and the environment. EPA issued the Second Five-Year Review
Report on September 28, 2012, and concluded that the remedy at the
JASCO Site is protective of human health and the environment. At that
time, groundwater contamination had reached cleanup levels, and any
potential exposures were controlled through the deed restriction. No
future five-year reviews are needed because the groundwater and soil
cleanup goals have been attained throughout the Site, all monitoring
wells have been closed, and the environmental covenant for the CERCLA
related contamination was terminated.

Community Involvement

    EPA held community meetings before and during the Site cleanup. EPA
released a fact sheet in 2010 describing potential redevelopment of the
site.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    EPA has followed all procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e),
Deletion from the NPL. EPA consulted with the State of California prior
to developing this Notice. EPA determined that the responsible party
has implemented all appropriate response actions required and that no
further response action for the Site is appropriate. EPA is publishing
a notice in the Mountain View Voice, a local newspaper, of its intent
to delete the Site and how to submit comments. EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the proposed deletion in the Site information
repositories; these documents are available for public inspection and
copying.
    The implemented groundwater remedy achieved the degree of cleanup
and protection specified in the ROD for the Site. The selected remedial
action objectives and associated cleanup levels for the groundwater are
consistent with agency policy and guidance. Based on information
currently available to EPA, no further Superfund response is needed to
protect human health and the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

     Dated: May 14, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2020-11028 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	Fw: Reclaimer Certifications
	Julius Banks
	to:
	Melissa Fiffer
	12/11/2009 10:05 AM
	Show Details

Julius Banks
Team Lead, Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling Prog.
Stratospheric Protection Division
tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/608fact.html

----- Forwarded by Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US on 12/11/2009 10:05 AM -----

	Reclaimer Certifications

	Talbot Gee
	to:
	Julius Banks
	03/10/2009 04:55 PM

Hi Julius,

I'm sure you're swamped with comments right now, but I wanted to directly
send you a copy of ours primarily because of recommendations we've made
concerning reclaimer certifications following our last discussion.  Once
you've gotten a chance to take a look at that section, could we talk about
whether this is of interest to the EPA and what potential next steps might
be?

Thanks,
Talbot

Talbot H. Gee, Vice President
Heating, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International
(614) 345-4328 x24
(614) 477-1702 mobile
www.hardinet.org


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40081-40085]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM16-6-000]

Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power
System--Primary Frequency Response: Notice of Request for Supplemental
Comments

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Request for supplemental comments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that, among
other things, proposed to revise the Commission's regulations to
require all newly interconnecting large and small generating
facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable
primary frequency response capability as a condition of
interconnection. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental
comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should
be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs
associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small
generating facilities.

DATES: Comments are due September 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM16-6-
000, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper
filing.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically may mail or hand deliver comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) \1\ that
proposed to modify the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement (SGIA), pursuant to its authority under section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of
jurisdictional service remain just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential.\2\ As modified, the pro forma LGIA and
pro forma SGIA would require all new large and small generating
facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install, maintain,
and operate equipment capable of providing primary frequency response
as a condition of interconnection. The Commission also proposed certain
operating requirements, including minimum requirements for droop and
deadband parameters, and requirements to ensure the timely and
sustained response to frequency deviations in the pro forma LGIA and
pro forma SGIA. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental
comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should
be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs
associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small
generating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power
System--Primary Frequency Response, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
81 FR 85176 (November 25, 2016), 157 FERC ] 61,122 (2016) (NOPR).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that explored a broad range
of issues regarding primary frequency response and the evolving Bulk-
Power System,\3\ the Commission issued the NOPR at issue in this
proceeding. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that its proposals
address concerns that the existing pro forma LGIA contains only limited
primary frequency response requirements, and those requirements only
apply to large synchronous generating facilities, and do not reflect
recent technological advancements enabling new large and small non-
synchronous generating facilities to install the capability to provide
primary frequency response.\4\ Further, the Commission stated that to
avoid establishing new requirements that could be unduly discriminatory
or preferential, the proposed reforms would impose comparable primary
frequency response requirements on both new large and small generating
facilities.\5\ In addition, the Commission did not propose to: (1)
Apply these requirements to generating facilities regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; (2) impose a headroom requirement; or
(3) mandate that new generating facilities receive compensation for
complying with the proposed requirements, noting that a public utility
is not prohibited from filing a proposal for primary frequency response
compensation under FPA section 205,\6\ if it so chooses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power
System--Primary Frequency Response, 154 FERC ] 61,117 (2016).
    \4\ NOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,122 at PP 2, 11, 13.
    \5\ Id. P 2.
    \6\ 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012).
    \7\ Id. PP 1, 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed
requirements will help ensure adequate primary frequency response
capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, with fair and
consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, and will
help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations
under NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. P 43. In January 2014, the Commission approved
Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 requiring balancing authorities to
meet a minimum required Frequency Response Obligation. While
Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 establishes requirements for
balancing authorities, it does not impose requirements on individual
generating facilities. Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting
Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Comments

A. Electric Storage Resources

    4. The NOPR proposals did not propose provisions specific to
electric storage resources. Several commenters raise concerns that, by
failing to address electric storage resources' unique technical
attributes, the NOPR requirements could pose an unduly discriminatory
burden on electric storage resources. The Energy Storage Association
(ESA) asserts that the proposed requirements could result in unique,
adverse impacts on electric storage resources. Particularly, ESA states
that the proposed use of nameplate capacity as the basis for primary
frequency response service and the fact that electric storage resources
are capable of operating at the full range of their capacity (i.e.,
they have no minimum set point) will require storage to provide a
``greater magnitude of [primary frequency response] service than
traditional generating facilities.'' \9\ ESA also explains that while
traditional generating facilities would have no primary frequency
response obligations while offline, electric storage resources are
always online, even when not charging or discharging, and under the
requirements proposed in the NOPR, they would therefore be required to
provide primary frequency response on a more frequent basis than
generating facilities that can go offline.\10\ Further, ESA explains
that the optimal depth of discharge differs among various electric
storage technologies, and exceeding the optimal depth of discharge
accelerates the degradation of the facility and

increases operations and maintenance costs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ESA Comments at 4.
    \10\ Id. at 3-4.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. To address its concerns, ESA requests that the Final Rule: (1)
Allow electric storage resources to specify a minimum set point for the
purposes of primary frequency response capability as a condition of
interconnection; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an
operational constraint that would relieve electric storage resources
from the sustained response requirement.\12\ In the absence of these
changes, ESA requests an exemption from the proposed primary frequency
response requirements.\13\ In its comments, AES Companies (AES) seeks a
complete exemption from the proposed NOPR requirements for electric
storage resources.\14\ AES also asserts that a droop requirement of
five percent would needlessly limit the contribution that electric
storage resources that are specifically designed for primary frequency
response can make to grid stability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 4-5.
    \13\ Id. at 5.
    \14\ AES Comments at 17 and 19 (specifying changes to the
proposed pro forma language).
    \15\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In light of these concerns, the Commission seeks additional
information to better understand the performance characteristics and
limitations of electric storage resources, possible ramifications of
the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric
storage resources, and what changes, if any, are needed to address the
issues raised by ESA and others. Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on the following questions:
    1. Some commenters state that certain proposed requirements are not
appropriate for electric storage resources, in particular, certain of
the proposed settings related to droop (e.g., basing the droop
parameter on nameplate capacity) and the requirement for timely and
sustained response to frequency deviations.
    a. Are there challenges or operational implications (e.g., unusual
or excessive wear and tear) of requiring electric storage resources to
implement the proposed operating settings for droop (including basing
the droop parameter on nameplate capacity), deadband, and timely and
sustained response? If so, please provide an explanation, and explain
how these challenges are different than those faced by other
synchronous and non-synchronous generating facilities.
    b. Also, please explain whether and how possible impacts of the
proposed requirements on electric storage resources vary by their state
of charge, and whether those possible impacts are the same or different
for all electric storage technologies. If these impacts vary by the
type of electric storage technology, please elaborate.
    c. If the proposed operating settings for droop, deadband, and
sustained response would cause any operational or other concerns unique
to electric storage resources that would justify different operating
settings than those proposed in the NOPR, what minimum requirements for
droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response might be more
appropriate for the effective provision of primary frequency response
from electric storage resources? Or are there parameters other than
those discussed in the NOPR (e.g., droop, deadband) that are more
applicable to electric storage resources that could be used to
accomplish effective timely and sustained primary frequency response?
If so, what would those parameters be?
    2. Are there risks associated with requiring electric storage
resources, which are energy-limited, to provide timely and sustained
primary frequency response, such as possible adverse effects on an
electric storage resource's ability to fulfill other obligations (e.g.,
providing energy or other ancillary services)?
    3. Please describe the relationship between electric storage
resources being online and the provision of primary frequency response.
    a. Are electric storage resources that are always online available
on a more frequent basis to provide primary frequency response than
generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (i.e., go offline)?
If so, please elaborate on possible operational or other impacts, if
any, that the proposed requirements may have on generating facilities
that are always online, as compared to generating facilities that go
offline.
    b. Please discuss whether it is possible to ``turn off'' an
electric storage resource's primary frequency response capability
(i.e., disable the ability to respond to frequency deviations without
physically disconnecting from the grid) when the electric storage
resource is neither charging nor discharging and not providing other
services (e.g., energy or other ancillary services) to the power
system. To the extent possible, please explain if this ability would
vary by the type of electric storage technology.
    4. Please explain what is meant by ``minimum set point'' and
elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.
    a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency
response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or
eliminated, if owners/operators of such resources or another entity
were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the provision of
primary frequency response service? If so, please elaborate.
    b. Would the primary frequency response requirements proposed in
the NOPR result in electric storage resources that have no such minimum
set point providing a greater magnitude of primary frequency response
for a given frequency deviation than other generating facilities of
equal nameplate capacity that have a minimum set point? Please provide
an explanation as to why this is or is not the case.
    c. How and in what ways would the implementation of such a minimum
set point change an electric storage resource's response to frequency
deviations, as compared to other generating facilities that do not
implement a minimum set point? As part of this explanation, please
explain whether the implementation of a minimum set point would: (1)
Limit the provision of primary frequency response for electric storage
resources to a megawatt (MW) range (i.e., between a minimum value and
the nameplate capacity of the electric storage resource); (2) be used
in lieu of nameplate capacity as the basis of the droop curve (i.e.,
reduce the expected proportional MW response to frequency deviations
below that of other generating facilities of equivalent nameplate
capacity for a given percentage droop (e.g., a 5 percent droop)); or
(3) be used in some other way.
    d. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another
entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the purposes
of primary frequency response:
    i. How would they determine the appropriate value of the minimum
set point for a given electric storage resource? What technical
characteristics or economic factors should be considered in
establishing a minimum set point for the various types of electric
storage resources?
    ii. Should the minimum set point be static, or dynamic and subject
to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to
change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.
    iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be
required to specify in their interconnection agreements the value of
the minimum set point and indicate whether it is

static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided
to the relevant balancing authority?
    5. Please explain what is meant by ``inadequate state of charge''
and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.
    a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency
response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or
eliminated if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were
allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational
constraint relieving electric storage resources from providing
sustained response when in that ``inadequate'' state? If so, please
elaborate.
    b. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another
entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an
operational constraint for electric storage resources:
    i. How would they determine what level of charge is ``inadequate''
thus preventing electric storage resources from providing sustained
primary frequency response output?
    ii. Should the inadequate state of charge parameter be static, or
dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If
it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant
such changes.
    iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be
required to specify in their interconnection agreements a parameter for
``inadequate state of charge'' and indicate whether it is static or
dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the
relevant balancing authority?
    6. What impacts, if any, would owners/operators of electric storage
resources experience if their resources are not allowed to maintain a
specified range of state of charge?
    a. Is there a certain range of state of charge (expressed as a
percentage of total charge) that would enable an electric storage
resource to provide primary frequency response without possible adverse
impacts?
    b. Would this range be the same for all electric storage resources,
or would it depend on the particular technology of a given electric
storage resource and/or the duration that the resource could sustain
its output?
    c. Are there differences in terms of adverse impacts on an electric
storage resource depending on whether its state of charge is low (e.g.,
five percent remaining charge) or high (e.g., 98 percent remaining
charge)? If so, please elaborate.
    d. To the extent there are adverse impacts, would they differ for
different electric storage technologies? If so, please elaborate.
    7. In lieu of (1) establishing a minimum set point for electric
storage resources and (2) including an inadequate state of charge as an
operational constraint, could owners/operators of all or certain types
of electric storage resources or another entity specify an operating
range \16\ outside of which electric storage resources would not be
required to provide and/or sustain primary frequency response to
prevent adverse impacts on the electric storage resources?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For the purposes of this document, ``operating range'' is
defined as minimum state of charge, maximum state of charge, maximum
rate of charge, and maximum rate of discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Would it be possible to base such an operating range on
manufacturer specifications and, if so, would establishing such an
operating range potentially address concerns about the harm to the
resource, degradation of its useful life, or other potential adverse
impacts?
    b. Would it be possible to specify such an operating range at the
time of interconnection and include the operating range in the
interconnection agreement? By what means should the operating range be
communicated to the relevant balancing authority?
    8. Are there other mechanisms or ways to address the concerns
raised by ESA and others on the proposed primary frequency response
requirements instead of: (1) Establishing a minimum set point and
including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint;
or (2) establishing an operating range as described above.

B. Small Generating Facilities

    7. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that small generating
facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in
the pro forma SGIA. The Commission stated that the record indicates
that small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling
governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating
facilities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,122 at P 41 (citing IEEE-P1547 Working
Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Some commenters raise concerns that small generating facilities
could face disproportionate costs to install primary frequency response
capability.\18\ For example, the Public Interest Organizations state
that the Commission's discussion of the economic impact on small
generating facilities of installing primary frequency response
capability is limited, and claims the information in the NOPR does not
directly support the Commission's conclusion that ``small generating
facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost
in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.'' \19\ Public
Interest Organizations encourage the Commission to further investigate
the cost for small renewable energy generating facilities to install
frequency response capability before making the proposed revisions to
the pro forma SGIA.\20\ National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA) asserts that the record is insufficient to conclude that the
proposed primary frequency response capability requirement will not
pose an undue burden on smaller generating facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3; NRECA Comments
at 8.
    \19\ Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3 (citing NOPR,
157 FERC ] 61,122 at P 42).
    \20\ Id. at 3-4.
    \21\ NRECA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Other commenters request that the Commission consider a size
limitation. In particular, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), NRECA,
and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) request the Commission adopt a
size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Idaho Power Comments at 2; NRECA Comments at 8; TVA
Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. To augment the record regarding the ability of small generating
facilities to comply with the proposed primary frequency response
requirements, and their potential economic impact, the Commission seeks
comment on the following questions:
    1. Are the costs for small generating facilities to install,
maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls proportionally
comparable to the costs for large generating facilities? If costs are
proportionally higher for small generating facilities to install,
maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls, what accounts
for these higher costs? Quantify, to the extent possible, any general
differences in these costs between small and large generating
facilities.
    2. If small generating facilities were required to comply with the
proposed primary frequency response requirements, do recent
technological advances in primary frequency response capability
minimize or eliminate possible barriers to entry of small generating
facilities? If not, in what specific ways could the proposed
requirements be a barrier to entry? Should such negative impacts occur,
please discuss means by which the

Commission could potentially mitigate or eliminate them?
    3. Is an exemption appropriate for all or a subset of small
generating facilities based on possible disproportionate cost impacts
of installing the capability to provide primary frequency response? If
so, please provide specific cost data demonstrating that is the case.
    4. Given their increasing market penetration and operational role
in the Bulk-Power System, please discuss the extent to which small
generating facilities are necessary to ensure adequate primary
frequency response.
    5. Please discuss whether PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM's)
recent changes to its interconnection agreements, which require new
large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install
enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response
capability,\23\ address concerns regarding possible disproportionate
costs or barriers resulting from applying the NOPR proposals to the
entire set of small generating facilities. If yes, please discuss the
viability of applying PJM's approach in other regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,122 at P 42 (citing PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,097, at P 28 (2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Procedures

    11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted,
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters
may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 14, 2017. Comments must
refer to Docket No. RM16-6-000, and must include the commenter's name,
the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in
their comments.
    12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    16. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: August 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17952 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55521-55522]
[DOCID:fr25se08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1791-DR]

Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Texas

(FEMA-1791-DR), dated September 13, 2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 16, 2008, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), in a letter to R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of Texas,
resulting from Hurricane Ike beginning on September 7, 2008, and
continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special
conditions are warranted regarding the cost-sharing arrangement
concerning Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207
(the Stafford Act).
    Therefore, I amend my previous declarations on September 13,
2008, and authorize Federal funds for assistance for debris removal
and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including
direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program, at
100 percent of the total eligible costs for a 14-day period
retroactive to the date of the major disaster declaration.
    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for
such adjustments under the law. The law specifically prohibits a
similar adjustment for funds provided to States for Other Needs
Assistance (Section 408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75
percent of total eligible costs.

    This cost share is effective as of the date of the President's
major disaster declaration.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-22560 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53774]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0019; OMB No. 1660-0026]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The State Administrative Plan is a procedural guide that
details how the State will administer the HMGP. The State must have a
current administrative plan approved by the appropriate FEMA Regional
Administrator before receiving HMGP funds. The administrative plan may
take any form including a chapter within a comprehensive State
mitigation program strategy.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 32.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 512.
    Estimated Cost: There are no recordkeeping, capital, start-up or
maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

    Dated: August 22, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-21244 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-13-P