[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35281-35282]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-83-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 10, 2021, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), made a filing
identifying an unjust and unreasonable aspect of the formula for
determining the Regulation market performance-clearing price credit, as
stated in PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff Attachment K-Appendix,
section 3.2.2(g) and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Schedule 1, section 3.2.2(g). PJM
submitted this filing to establish a refund effective date for the
replacement calculation of the formula, which is currently under
development in the PJM stakeholder process, as more fully explained in
the filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining
the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a
party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests
must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer,
motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 1, 2021.

    Dated: June 24, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14134 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ample margin of safety and that the requirements set forth in this
final rule are not applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines
that are associated with the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
industry and facilities. Under this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP
requirements remain applicable to all the halogenated solvent cleaning
machines associated with the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
facilities.
    Comment: Commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines
projected the capital costs of complying with the proposed emission
limits (through ``additions'' to their production lines) at about
$1,000,000.
    Response: EPA recognizes the unique character of continuous web
cleaning machines and is persuaded that technical emission control
choices are limited to CADs to attain significant emission reductions.
EPA has assumed that CADs may only achieve a 10 to 30 percent overall
reductions in facility-wide emissions. Therefore, CAD alone would be
insufficient for purposes of complying with the final promulgated

emissions limit. We have taken this into consideration in promulgating
the final rule.
    Comment: The narrow tube manufacturing industry calculated their
costs of compliance with the proposed emission limits on the basis of
installing CAD and researching and designing new and untested vacuum-
to-vacuum technology. They indicated that capital costs for CAD
installation ranged from $200,000 to $1,800,000. They also indicated
that while this option is technically feasible it would only achieve 10
to 30 percent maximum in overall facility emissions reductions. The
commenters further indicated that compliance with the proposed limits
would require engineering new technology or relying on vacuum-to-vacuum
machines, but that after conferring with vacuum-to-vacuum machine
manufacturers, the cost estimates were more than $4,600,000 in capital
costs with about $578,000 for operating costs. One facility, which
produces specialized narrow tubing for medical applications, projected
costs for vacuum-to-vacuum machines installation at $10.5 million and
estimated that it would require between five and six years for the
evaluation of the machines' cleaning performance. The commenters also
stated that end-loading machines would require additional building
space for loading and unloading tube bundles with lengths of 80 to 110
feet.
    Response: EPA is persuaded that the narrow tubing industry is
confronted with the biggest technological hurdle in achieving emissions
reductions for purposes of achieving either the proposed or final
promulgated emission limits. EPA is persuaded that emission control
choices, for the narrow tubing industry, are limited to CAD, in order
to attain the most significant emission reductions within the three-
year compliance time frame. EPA is also persuaded that CAD may only
achieve a 10 to 30 percent overall reductions in facility-wide
emissions. Therefore, we have determined that installation of CAD alone
would not control emissions to the level of either the proposed or
final promulgated emission limits. We have also taken into
consideration the costs for developing technology that will reduce
emissions to both the proposed and final promulgated emissions limits.
EPA has amended its cost analysis for this group of facilities and has
determined that a cost effectiveness of over $3,600/ton, when joined
with EPA's estimate of over $87 million in annual costs for each cancer
case avoided, is unreasonable. Therefore, EPA is concluding in this
final rule that the NESHAP requirements for narrow tube manufacturing
provide an ample margin of safety, prevent adverse environmental
effects and that the requirements set forth in this final rule will not
be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated with
the narrow tubing manufacturing industry. Under this final rule, the
1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable to all continuous web and
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by narrow tubing and
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities.

C. Compliance Schedule

    Comment: Aerospace industries maintained that a five-year minimum
compliance period would be necessary to investigate technology and
protocol changes in order to comply with the proposed 40,000 kg/yr
limit. A commenter from the narrow tubing industry suggested between
five and ten years as necessary for them to investigate the probability
of applying technology to reduce emissions to a significant amount, to
either of the proposed emission limits.
    The narrow tube manufacturing commenters stated that their machines
are unique, indicated the non-availability of feasible emission
reductions technology for either proposed emission limits and
recommended that EPA allow the industry five to ten years for research
and development of specific vacuum-to-vacuum technology for the
specific needs of their industry.
    Response: As stated in responses to earlier comments, EPA has
considered these comments as significant and after re-evaluating
compliance costs, technical feasibility and other factors, is
concluding that, for the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
industry, narrow tube manufacturing industry, and facilities using
continuous web cleaning machines, the current level of control provided
by the existing NESHAP both reduces HAP emissions to levels that
present an acceptable risk and provides an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.

VI. Impacts

    For sources required to comply with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent
emission limit, the national capital costs to reach compliance with the
final rule are estimated to be $15,000,000 with annualized cost savings
of $1.3 million. The capital costs for individual facilities would
range from $15,000 to $800,000 with an average cost of about $200,000.
More than 60 percent of the facilities implementing control technology
would recognize a cost savings primarily from solvent savings.
Capturing and controlling HAP emissions is a pollution prevention
approach where emissions reduction translate into less PCE, TCE and MC
consumption and reduced operating costs primarily because facilities
would need to purchase less solvents. Using the 2002 NEI database, the
maximum individual cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from 100-in-1
million to between 20 and 50-in-a-million (using both OPPTS and CalEPA
potency values). The rule is expected to reduce cancer incidence from
0.55 cases annually to 0.36 cases annually, a reduction in cancer
incidence of 0.19 cases annually.
    EPA also estimates that to comply with the 100,000 kg/yr MC
equivalent emission limit, military depot maintenance facilities are
expected to incur $540,000 in capital costs with annualized savings of
about $56,000. Using the 2002 NEI database, the maximum individual
cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from six-in-a-million to three-
in-a-million. The emission limit for military depot maintenance
facilities is expected to reduce cancer incidence by 0.002 cases
annually.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Executive Order (EO)
12866 gives the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the authority to
review regulatory actions that are categorized as ``significant'' under
section 3(f) of the EP, i.e., those actions that are likely to result
in a rule that may raise novel legal and policy issues arising out of
mandates in CAA section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to OMB for review under EO 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is briefly
summarized in Section III.B. of the Preamble, is contained in National
Cost Impacts Memorandum. A copy of the analysis is available in the
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Owners

or operators will continue to keep records and submit required reports
to EPA or the delegated State regulatory authority. Notifications,
reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are
required, in general, of all sources subject to the 1994 Halogenated
Solvent Cleaning NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1994
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP continue to maintain records and
retain them for at least 5 years following the date of such
measurements, reports, and records. Information collection requirements
that were promulgated on December 2, 1994 in the Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed amendments, as well the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission
standards, are documented in EPA ICR No. 1652.05. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved these information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR
part 63 subpart T under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0273,
EPA ICR number 1652.05. A copy of the OMB approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-
1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR part 15.
    We have established a public docket for this action, which includes
the ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0009, which can be
found in http://www.regulations.gov. This final decision will not

change the burden estimates from those developed and approved in 1994
for the national emission standard.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of the final action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    As mentioned earlier in this Preamble, facilities across several
industries use halogenated solvents to degrease their products,
therefore a number of size standards are utilized in this analysis. For
the industries represented in this analysis, the employment size
standard varies from 500 to 1,500 employees. The annual sales standard
is as low as 4 million dollars and as high as 150 million dollars.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the economic impact of the final rule to
affected small entities in the entire halogenated solvent cleaning
source category. The final rule is expected to affect 125 ultimate
parent entities that will be regulated as major sources. Forty of the
parent entities, or approximately one-third, are defined as small
according to the SBA small business size standards. None of the small
firms has an annualized cost of more than 0.7 percent of sales
associated with meeting the requirements for major sources, and 16 of
the forty affected small firms are estimated to incur no costs or have
cost savings associated with compliance with the final rule. For more
information, please consult the economic impact analysis for this
rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains

no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected halogenated
solvent cleaning facilities are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final
rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribe Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final decision.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final decision is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
the Agency believes this action represents reasonable further efforts
to mitigate risks to the general public, including effects on children.
This conclusion is based on our assessment of the imposed emission
limits that would reduce chlorinated solvent impacts on human health
associated with exposures to halogenated solvent cleaning operations.

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

    The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
    This final rule will have a negligible impact on energy consumption
because about ten percent of entities using halogenated solvent
cleaning will have to reduce emissions through a range of activities
involving simple process changes to the installation of additional
emission control equipment or special low emitting machines to comply.
The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by the final
rule at all since the standards do not affect energy distribution
facilities. We also expect that there would be no impact on the import
of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected
to occur with regards to energy supplies. Further, we have concluded
that this final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse
energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This final revision to the 1994 NESHAP for halogenated solvent
cleaning do not include requirements for technical standards beyond
what the NESHAP requires. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do
not apply to this action.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule
amendment and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of this final rule amendment in the Federal
Register. The final rule amendment is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule is effective on May 3, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For reasons stated in the Preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.460 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (g)
and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.460  Applicability and designation of source.

* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each
solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced
construction or reconstruction after November 29, 1993 shall achieve
compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for Sec.
63.471, immediately upon start-up or by December 2, 1994, whichever is
later.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each
solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before November 29, 1993 shall
achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for
Sec.  63.471, no later than December 2, 1997.
* * * * *
    (g) Each continuous web cleaning machine subject to this subpart
shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except
for Sec.  63.471, no later than December 2, 1999.
* * * * *
    (i) The compliance date for the requirements in Sec.  63.471
depends on the date that construction or reconstruction of the affected
facility commences. For purposes of this paragraph, affected facility
means all solvent cleaning machines, except solvent cleaning machines
used in the manufacture and maintenance of aerospace products, solvent
cleaning machines used in the manufacture of narrow tubing, and
continuous web cleaning machines, located at a major source that are
subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of Sec.  63.471(b)(2),
and for area sources, affected facility means all solvent cleaning
machines, except cold batch cleaning machines, located at an area
source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of Sec.
63.471(b)(2).
    (1) Each affected facility that was constructed or reconstructed on
or before August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance with the provisions
of this subpart no later than May 3, 2010.
    (2) Each affected facility that was constructed or reconstructed on
or after August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance with the provisions of
this subpart on May 3, 2007 or immediately upon startup, whichever is
later.

0
3. Section Sec.  63.471 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:

Sec.  63.471  Facility-wide standards.

    (a) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall comply
with the requirements specified in this section. For purposes of this
section, affected facility means all solvent cleaning machines, except
solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture and maintenance of
aerospace products, solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture
of narrow tubing, and continuous web cleaning machines, located at a
major source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, and for area sources, affected facility means
all solvent cleaning machines, except cold batch cleaning machines,
located at an area source that are subject to the facility-wide limits
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (b)(1) Each owner or operator of an affected facility must maintain
a log of solvent additions and deletions for each solvent cleaning
machine.
    (2) Each owner or operator of an affected facility must ensure that
the total emissions of perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE)
and methylene chloride (MC) used at the affected facility are equal to
or less than the applicable facility-wide 12-month rolling total
emission limit presented in Table 1 of this section as determined using
the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.

              Table 1.--Facility-wide Emission Limits for Facilities With Solvent Cleaning Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Facility-wide annual
                                                                emission limits in kg--    Facility-wide annual
                       Solvents emitted                          for general population    emission limit in kg
                                                                  degreasing machines       for military depot
                                                                                maintenance facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCE only \a\..................................................                    4,800                    8,000
TCE only......................................................                   14,100                   23,500
MC only.......................................................                   60,000                  100,000
Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using                     60,000                 100,000
 equation 1...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ PCE emission limit calculated using CalEPA URE.

    Note: In the equation, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are
weighted according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of
MC. The value of A is 12.5. The value for B is 4.25.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.015

Where:

WE = Weighted 12-month rolling total emissions in kg (lbs).
PCE = 12-month rolling total PCE emissions from all solvent cleaning
machines at the facility in kg (lbs).
TCE = 12-month rolling total TCE emission from all solvent cleaning
machines at the facility in kg (lbs).
MC = 12-month rolling total MC emissions from all solvent cleaning
machines at the facility in kg (lbs).

    (c) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the
first operating day of every month, demonstrate compliance with the
applicable facility-wide emission limit on a 12-month rolling total
basis using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section. For purposes of this paragraph, ``each solvent cleaning
machine'' means each solvent cleaning machine that is part of an
affected facility regulated by this section.
    (1) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the
first operating day of every month, ensure that each solvent cleaning
machine system contains only clean liquid solvent. This includes, but
is not limited to, fresh unused solvent, recycled solvent, and used
solvent that has been cleaned of soiled materials. A fill line must be
indicated during the first month the measurements are made. The solvent
level within the machine must be returned to the same fill-line each
month, immediately prior to calculating monthly emissions as specified
in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section. The solvent cleaning
machine does not have to be emptied and filled with fresh unused
solvent prior to the calculations.
    (2) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the
first operating day of the month, using the records of all solvent
additions and deletions for the previous month, determine solvent
emissions (Eunit) from each solvent cleaning machine using
equation 10:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.016

Where:

Eunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions from
the solvent cleaning

machine during the most recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per
month).
SAi = the total amount of halogenated HAP liquid solvent
added to the solvent cleaning machine during the most recent month
i, (kilograms of solvent per month).
LSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP liquid solvent
removed from the solvent cleaning machine during the most recent
month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).
SSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP solvent
removed from the solvent cleaning machine in solid waste, obtained
as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, during the most
recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).

    (3) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the
first operating day of the month, determine SSRi using the
method specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) From tests conducted using EPA reference method 25d.
    (ii) By engineering calculations included in the compliance report.
    (4) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the
first operating day of the month, after 12 months of emissions data are
available, determine the 12-month rolling total emissions,
ETunit, for the 12-month period ending with the most recent
month using equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.017

Where:

ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions over
the preceding 12 months, (kilograms of solvent emissions per 12-
month period).
Eunit = halogenated HAP solvent emissions for each month
(j) for the most recent 12 months (kilograms of solvent per month).

    (5) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the
first operating day of the month, after 12 months of emissions data are
available, determine the 12-month rolling total emissions,
ETfacility, for the 12-month period ending with the most
recent month using equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.018

Where:

ETfacility = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions
over the preceding 12 months for all cleaning machines at the
facility, (kilograms of solvent emissions per 12-month period).
ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions over
the preceding 12 months for each unit j, where i equals the total
number of units at the facility (kilograms of solvent emissions per
12-month period).

    (d) If the applicable facility-wide emission limit presented in
Table 1 of paragraph (b)(2) is not met, an exceedance has occurred. All
exceedances shall be reported as required in Sec.  63.468(h).
    (e) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall maintain
records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section
either in electronic or written form for a period of 5 years. For
purposes of this paragraph, ``each solvent cleaning machine'' means
each solvent cleaning machine that is part of an affected facility
regulated by this section.
    (1) The dates and amounts of solvent that are added to each solvent
cleaning machine.
    (2) The solvent composition of wastes removed from each solvent
cleaning machines as determined using the procedure described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (3) Calculation sheets showing how monthly emissions and the 12-
month rolling total emissions from each solvent cleaning machine were
determined, and the results of all calculations.
    (f) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit an
initial notification report to the Administrator no later than May 3,
2010. This report shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator of the affected
facility.
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the solvent cleaning
machine(s) that is part of an affected facility regulated by this
section.
    (3) A brief description of each solvent cleaning machine at the
affected facility including machine type (batch vapor, batch cold,
vapor in-line or cold in-line), solvent/air interface area, and
existing controls.
    (4) The date of installation for each solvent cleaning machine.
    (5) An estimate of annual halogenated HAP solvent consumption for
each solvent cleaning machine.
    (g) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit to
the Administrator an initial statement of compliance on or before May
3, 2010. The statement shall include the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section.
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator of the affected
facility.
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of each solvent cleaning
machine that is part of an affected facility regulated by this section.
    (3) The results of the first 12-month rolling total emissions
calculation.
    (h) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit a
solvent emission report every year. This solvent emission report shall
contain the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3)
of this section.
    (1) The average monthly solvent consumption for the affected
facility in kilograms per month.
    (2) The 12-month rolling total solvent emission estimates
calculated each month using the method as described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
    (3) This report can be combined with the annual report required in
Sec.  63.468(f) and (g) into a single report for each facility.

[FR Doc. E7-7668 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 63131]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22629]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34727; File No. 812-15379]

Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust and Lincoln Investment
Advisors Corporation

October 13, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(c) of
the Act.
    Summary of Application: The requested exemption would permit a
Trust's board of trustees (the ``Board'') to approve new sub-advisory
agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements
without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section
15(c) of the Act.
    Applicants: Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust (the
``Trust''), and Lincoln Investment Advisors Corporation (``LIAC'' or
the ``Adviser'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 8, 2022, and
amended on September 30, 2022.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on November 7, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Ronald Holinsky, Esq., Lincoln Investment Advisors Corporation, 150 N.
Radnor-Chester Road, Radnor, PA 19087; Robert Robertson, Esq., Dechert
LLP US Bank Tower, 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900, Los Angeles, CA,
90071-2032.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, or Lisa
Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended
application, dated September 30, 2022, which may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You
may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22629 Filed 10-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40762]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3576-014; ER11-3401-013.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Golden Spread
Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2017 Notice of Non-material
Change in Status of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 8/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170822-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1766-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-21_Amended RSG Compliance
filing to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170821-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2225-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-21_Compliance to RSG
Rehearing Filing to be effective 8/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170821-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2355-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-21_Amended RSG Exemptions
Compliance filing to be effective 8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170821-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1913-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC.
    Description: Errata to June 27, 2017 Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick,
LLC tariff filing (Requesting Administrative Cancellation of Tariff).
    Filed Date: 8/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170810-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2197-001.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Rate Schedule No. 155 NPC/CRC
Agreement Executed to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170822-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2340-000.
    Applicants: Golden Hills North Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Golden Hills North Wind, LLC
Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170821-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2341-000.
    Applicants: CA Flats Solar 130, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: CA Flats Solar 130, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 8/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170821-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

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

    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18149 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51266-51267]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0067; Notice 1]

Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that
certain MNA tires do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic
radial tires for light vehicles. MNA filed a report dated May 5, 2016,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. MNA then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is September 2,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at
the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown at the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), MNA submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of MNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 186 MNA Uniroyal
Tiger Paw AWP II size P215/70R15 97T passenger car tires that were
manufactured between January 10, 2016 and January 13, 2016.
    III. Noncompliance: MNA explains that two of the digits in the tire
identification number (TIN) that identify the week and year of
manufacture were inadvertently switched. This resulted in the tires,
which were manufactured in the second week of 2016, being molded with a
manufacturing date of ``0126'' rather than the correct marking of
``0216,''

contrary to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No.
139 and 49 CFR 574,5(g)(4).
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 requires in
pertinent part:

    S5.5.1 Tire Identification Number.
    . . .
    (b) Tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. Each tire
must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.

    49 CFR 574.5(g)(4) provides that the fourth grouping of symbols
within the tire identification number shall ``identify the week and
year of manufacture.'' The regulation specifies that ``[t]he first and
second symbols of the date code must identify the week of the year,''
and ``[t]he third and fourth symbols of the date code identify the last
two digits of the year of manufacture.'' Applying these requirements,
the subject tires, which were manufactured during week 2 of 2016,
should display ``0216'' as the date code, but instead display ``0126''
as the date code.
    V. Summary of MNA's Petition: MNA believes that this noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MNA submitted the following information
and analysis of the subject noncompliance:
    1. MNA stated that although the date code is not correct, it
specifies a date well into the future and thus offers a unique
identification for the subject tires. Futhermore, the incorrect but
unique coding has been recorded in MNA's records and can be used to
identify the subject tires in the event of a future market action.
    2. MNA also stated that there should be no risk of duplication of
the TIN in the future since the current 2 digit plant code will evolve
to a 3 digit plant code by April 25, 2025, thus creating a new TIN
sequence prior to week 1 of 2026 (the date inadvertently specified on
the subject tires).
    3. MNA further noted that that the incorrect date code does not
compromise the ability to register the tire. Tire registration cards
accept the date as marked (0126). Moreover, the Uniroyal tire
registration Web page accepts the TIN with the date as described.
    4. MNA also stated that Michelin's consumer care team has been
informed should there be any questions from a consumer or dealer.
    5. MNA concluded by noting that all other markings on the subject
tires conform to the applicable regulations and meet all performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
    In its part 573 Report, MNA stated that there is no imminent safety
risk associated with the mismarking.
    In summation, MNA believes that the described noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt MNA from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that MNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after MNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-18308 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 39734]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0033]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Recordkeeping Requirements for
Microbiological Testing and Corrective Measures for Bottled Water

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Recordkeeping Requirements for
Microbiological Testing and Corrective Measures for Bottled Water'' has
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 26, 2013, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Recordkeeping
Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective Measures for
Bottled Water'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0658. The approval
expires on May 31, 2016. A copy of the supporting statement for this
information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: June 26, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-15793 Filed 7-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P