[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29899-29900]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2716-002; ER19-2717-002; ER20-1398-001; ER20-
1399-002; ER21-2886-002; ER22-1878-001; ER22-1885-001.

    Applicants: South Portland ESS, LLC, Sanford ESS, LLC, Old
Middleboro Road Solar, LLC, Rumford ESS, LLC, Ocean State BTM, LLC
Madison ESS, LLC, Madison BTM, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Madison BTM, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230428-5728.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1592-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Request to Defer Action-Original
WMPA, SA No. 6868; Queue No. AF2-165 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1813-000; TS23-4-000.
    Applicants: Oxbow Solar Farm 1, LLC, Oxbow Solar Farm 1, LLC.
    Description: Request for Temporary Tariff Waiver, et al. of Oxbow
Solar Farm 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20230502-5213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1814-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-05-02 CSU SISA 744-PSCo
0.0.0--DRAFT to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20230502-5212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1815-000.
    Applicants: UNITED POWER, INC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of United Power, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5568.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1816-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYSEG 205 re:
Rate Schedule 19 Attachment 1 Formula Rate Protocols and Template to be
effective 7/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1817-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: RG&E 205 re:
Rate Schedule 19 Attachment 1 Formula Rate Protocols and Template to be
effective 7/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1818-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISA, SA No. 6881; Queue No.
AF2-445A to be effective 4/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1819-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4074 Bowman Wind & Mountrail
Wind & Basin SNUFCA to be effective 7/2/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1820-000.
    Applicants: Evergy Kansas Central, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Evergy Kansas Central and
Evergy Kansas South Regulatory Asset Recovery Filing to be effective 7/
1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1821-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5589; Queue No. AE2-115 to be effective 7/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1822-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amend to Reactive Power
Tariff--RS 304 to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1823-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5588; Queue No. AE2-114 to be effective 7/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1824-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing of Proposed
Tariff Revisions re: Retention and Transfer of CRIS to be effective 7/
3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230503-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: May 3, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09808 Filed 5-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5751-5753]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0651]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercise, Apra
Outer Harbor, GU

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish two recurring safety
zones for navigable waters of Apra Outer Harbor and Piti, Guam. The
safety zones will encompass sites designated for U.S. Navy underwater
detonation (UNDET)

exercises. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone regulation is
necessary to protect the public and exercise participants within the
affected area from possible safety hazards associated with these
exercises. These safety zones will impact a small designated area of
navigable waters in Apra Harbor and Piti during periods of times, many
of which are of short duration, on days requested by the Navy for UNDET
exercises. With the exception of exercise participants, entry of
vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 26, 2018. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before March 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0651 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Robin Branch, Sector
Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    U.S. Navy UNDET exercises occur multiple times throughout the year
to train and prepare personnel for operational missions. We have
established safety zones for these Navy UNDETs in past years through a
temporary final rulemaking for each exercise. For all subsequent
exercises, we propose to establish recurring safety zones through this
regulation to safeguard the public and exercise participants within the
affected area from possible safety hazards associated with the
exercises.
    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of these proposed safety zones is to protect
the public and exercise participants from possible safety hazards
associated with the exercises.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish these recurring safety zones for
periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days requested
by the Navy for UNDET exercises. The safety zones will cover all
navigable waters within a 700 yard radius above and below the surface
for the Apra Outer Harbor site and a 700 yard radius above and below
the surface for the Piti site. The duration of the safety zones are
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
these navigable waters during the UNDET exercise. With the exception of
exercise participants, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter
the safety zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analysis

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zones. Vessel traffic will be able
to safely transit around these safety zones, which will impact a small
designated area of waters off of Piti, Guam, and in Apra Outer Harbor
for periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days
requested by the Navy for UNDET exercises. The UNDET exercises occur
approximately 10 times a year, although additional exercises may be
required based on Navy training needs. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the safety zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic 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.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves two safety
zones for periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days
requested by the Navy for UNDET exercises that would prohibit entry
within a 700 yard radius above and below the surface for the Apra Outer
Harbor site and a 700 yard radius above and below the surface for the
Piti site. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec.  165.1402 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1402   Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET)
Exercise, Apra Outer Harbor, GU.

    (a) Location. The following areas, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor, are safety zones:
    (1) Apra Outer Harbor, Guam. All waters above and below the surface
bounded by a circle with a 700 yard radius centered at 13 degrees 27
minutes 42 seconds North Latitude and 144 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds
East Longitude, (NAD 1983).
    (2) Piti, Guam. All waters above and below the surface bounded by a
circle with a 700-yard radius centered at 13 degrees 29 minutes 03
seconds North Latitude and 144 degrees 40 minutes 03 seconds East
Longitude, (NAD 1983).
    (b) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced for
designated periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on
days requested by the Navy for purpose of UNDET exercises.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. With the exception of exercise
participants, no vessels may enter or transit safety zones (a)(1) and
no persons in the water may enter or transit safety zone (a)(2) unless
authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof.
    (d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce these safety zones.

    Dated: December 11, 2017.
Christopher M. Chase,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2018-02648 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day period time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient.  We request that the review period be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45477]
[DOCID:fr03au10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0687]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Company Canal, Bourg, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
LA 24 vertical lift span bridge across Company Canal, mile 8.1, at
Bourg, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to
perform electrical rehabilitation work on the bridge. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for twelve consecutive
days.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on Monday, October 25
through 10 p.m. on Friday, November 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0687 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0687 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Kay Wade, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development has requested a temporary deviation from the operating
schedule of the vertical lift span bridge across Company Canal at mile
8.1 in Bourg, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The vertical clearance of
the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position is 5.17 feet above Mean
High Water Elevation 3.0 feet Mean Sea Level.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.438(b), the vertical lift span of the
bridge currently opens on signal except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
the draw opens on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given. This
deviation allows the vertical lift span of the bridge to remain closed
to navigation for twelve consecutive days from 6 a.m. Monday, October
25 through 10 p.m. Friday, November 5, 2010.
    The closure is necessary in order to replace electrical conductors
and conduit throughout the bridge structure, including the removal and
replacement of all navigation lights on the span and fender system.
This maintenance is essential for the continued operation of the
bridge. Temporary navigational lighting will be provided during the
closure and power outage period. Notices will be published in the
Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be
broadcast via the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.
    Navigation on the waterway consists of commercial and recreational
fishing vessels, small to medium crew boats, and small tugs with and
without tows. There are no commercial docks or marine type facilities
within one mile of the bridge along Company Canal or Bayou Terrebonne.
The bridge opens for the passage of navigation an average of 53 times
per month. There are two alternate waterway routes available via the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east to Bayou Lafourche and west to
Navigation Canal. Small vessels may pass under the bridge while in the
closed-to-navigation position provided caution is exercised. In an
emergency, the bridge can be returned to operation with a 36 hour
notice.
    Due to prior experience and coordination with waterway users, it
has been determined that this closure will not have a significant
effect on vessels that use the waterway.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 23, 2010.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-18961 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


(3) both single oral low and high dose groups gave a high percentage of  5-hydroxy FMC 57020 in their feces samples especially in the first day feces indicating the possibility of entero-hepatic circulation. This possibility was further enhanced by the fact that less than 1% of the fecal and urinary metabolites was un-metabolized parent compound.

(4) it was reasonable to assume that 5-OH FMC 57020-conjugate formed in the liver was excreted to the gastrointestinal tract via the bile duct and this conjugate was readily cleaved to
5-OH FMC 57020 and excreted in the feces.

(5) in the multiple oral low dosed group, the amounts of di-hydroxylated, tri-hydroxylated and
di-hydrodiol metabolites were increased significantly, indicating that an induction effect on the mixed function oxidase (MFO) system (possibly the cytochrome p-450 system) had developed.

The predominant metabolites included: 5-hydroxy FMC 57020; 4', 5-dihydroxy FMC 57020;
4', 5' -dihydrodiol-5-hydroxy FMC 57020; 4', 5'-dihydrodiol FMC 57020, N-[(2'-chlorophenyl) methyl]-N-hydroxy-2-methyl-2-carboxy propanamide (FMC 87008) and a dihydroxylated derivative of FMC 57020. Metabolites were excreted both free and as conjugates.
Residual [14]C in tissues was, in general, very low. Most of the tissues had residues of less than twice the background.

Single oral 5.0 mg/kg (low) dose: Values higher than twice the back ground were detected in  the lungs, spleen, kidney, liver, blood, skin, hair, and carcass of both sexes. The highest residue was generally found in the hair, the organs involved in the metabolism and excretion of the compound, the liver, kidney and the blood.

Single oral 900.0 mg/kg (high) dose: Residue levels higher than twice the background were detected in the same organs as the low dose.

Intravenous dose: Residue levels higher than twice the background were detected in the same tissues as those found for oral administration.

Multiple dose (14 days): Residue values higher than twice the background were detected in the same tissues as for the single oral dose.

This metabolism study in the rat is classified Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the requirements for a metabolism and pharmacokinetics study [OPPTS 870.7485 (§85-1) in rats.

870.7800	Immunotoxicity

The HASPOC waived the requirement for this study on September 19, 2013 (TXR No. 0056801, Rury, 2013).

Appendix B.  Physical/Chemical Properties

Table C1.  Physico-Chemical Properties of Clomazone
Parameter
                                     Value
                                   Reference
Molecular Weight
                                   239.7006
                                   239.7006
                                     239.7
Calculated
Melting point/range
  25 C, broad range
MRID 00144241
pH
  6.89 + 14 (supernatant of slurry)
MRID 00144241
Density
  1.187 g/mL
MRID 00144241
Water solubility ( mg/L at unspecified C)
  1100 mg/L
MRID 00144241
Solvent solubility (mg/L at unspecified C)
  >200 mg/L in Tenneco 500-100
  4.5-5.0 mg/L  in Isopar M
  >90 mg/L in refined soybean oil
  Infinite in dimethyl formamide
  Infinite in cyclohexanone
MRID 00144241
Vapor pressure at 25 C
  1.92 x 10 [-2] Pa (1.44 x 10 [-4] mm Hg)
MRID 00144241
Dissociation constant (pKa)
  N/A neither acidic nor basic
MRID 00144241
Octanol/water partition coefficient Log(KOW)
  350 (log p = 2.54)
MRID 00144241
UV/visible absorption spectrum
  Not available

Appendix C.  Review of Human Research

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical. These data, which include studies from PHED 1.1; the AHETF database; and the ARTF database, are (1) subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26, (2) have received that review, and (3) are compliant with applicable ethics requirements.  For certain studies, the ethics review may have included review by the Human Studies Review Board.  Descriptions of data sources, as well as guidance on their use, can be found at the Agency website.

The PHED Task Force, 1995.  The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database, Version 1.1.  Task Force members Health Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, released February, 1995.

Agricultural Re-entry Task Force (ARTF) data base (SOP #3.1)


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26635-26641]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08906]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0612; FRL-10008-55-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; SC; NOX SIP Call and Removal of CAIR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of South Carolina through letters dated April 12, 2019, and July
11, 2019 to establish a SIP-approved state control program to comply
with the Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP call obligations for
electric generating units (EGUs) and

large non-EGUs. EPA is also proposing to remove the SIP-approved
portions of the State's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program rules
from the South Carolina SIP. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve
into the SIP state regulations that establish an alternative monitoring
option for certain sources.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0612 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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 www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9230. Ms. McKinley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
EPA has traditionally termed the good neighbor provision, states are
required to address the interstate transport of air pollution.
Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires that each state's
implementation plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit air
pollutant emissions from within the state that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), or that will interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS, in any other state.
    In October 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the ``Finding of
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional
Transport of Ozone'' (``NOX SIP Call''). The NOX
SIP Call required eastern states, including South Carolina, to submit
SIPs that prohibit excessive emissions of ozone season NOX
by implementing statewide emissions budgets.\1\ The NOX SIP
Call addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and
was designed to mitigate the impact of transported NOX
emissions, one of the precursors of ozone. EPA developed the
NOX Budget Trading Program, an allowance trading program
that states could adopt to meet their obligations under the
NOX SIP Call. This trading program allowed the following
sources to participate in a regional cap and trade program: Generally
EGUs with capacity greater than 25 megawatts (MW); and large industrial
non-EGUs, such as boilers and combustion turbines, with a rated heat
input greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/
hr). The NOX SIP Call also identified potential reductions
from cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). As originally
promulgated, the NOX SIP Call also addressed good
neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but EPA
subsequently stayed and later rescinded the rule's provisions with
respect to that standard. See 65 FR 56245 (September 18, 2000); 84
FR 8422 (March 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with the NOX SIP Call requirements, South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
promulgated provisions at Regulation 61-62.96, Subparts A through I.
EPA approved the provisions into the State's SIP in 2002.\2\ The
provisions required EGUs and large non-EGUs in the State to participate
in the NOX Budget Trading Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 67 FR 43546 (June 28, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, EPA published CAIR, which required eastern states,
including South Carolina, to submit SIPs that prohibited emissions
consistent with ozone season (and annual) NOX budgets. See
70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR addressed the good neighbor provision
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of
transported NOX emissions with respect to not only ozone but
also PM2.5. CAIR established several trading programs that
EPA implemented through federal implementation plans (FIPs) for EGUs
greater than 25 MW in each affected state, but not large non-EGUs;
states could submit SIPs to replace the FIPs that achieved the required
emission reductions from EGUs and/or other types of sources.\3\ When
the CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX was
implemented beginning in 2009, EPA discontinued administration of the
NOX Budget Trading Program; however, the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call continued to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAIR had separate trading programs for annual sulfur dioxide
emissions, seasonal NOX emissions and annual
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 9, 2007, EPA approved an ``abbreviated SIP'' for South
Carolina, consisting of regulations governing allocation of
NOX allowances to EGUs for use in the trading programs
established pursuant to CAIR, and related rules allowing additional
sources to opt into the CAIR programs. See 72 FR 57209. The abbreviated
SIP was implemented in conjunction with a FIP for South Carolina that
specified requirements for emissions monitoring, permit provisions, and
other elements of CAIR programs.
    On October 16, 2009, EPA approved a ``full SIP'' for South
Carolina, through which various CAIR implementation provisions became
governed by State rules rather than federal rules.\4\ Consistent with
CAIR's requirements, EPA approved a SIP revision in which South
Carolina regulations: (1) Sunsetted its NOX Budget Trading
Program requirements, (2) removed NOX SIP Call
implementation requirements (i.e., South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96,
Subparts A through I, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget
Program''), and (3) incorporated CAIR (i.e., South Carolina Regulation
61- 62.96, Subparts AA through II, AAA through III, and AAAA through
IIII, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Budget Trading Program''). See 74 FR 53167 (October
16, 2009). Participation of EGUs in the CAIR ozone season
NOX trading program addressed the State's obligation under
the NOX SIP Call for those units, and South Carolina also
chose to require non-EGUs subject to the NOX SIP Call to
participate in the same CAIR trading program. In this manner, South
Carolina's CAIR rules incorporated into the SIP addressed the State's
obligations under the NOX SIP Call with respect to both EGUs
and non-EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 74 FR 53167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the

environmental benefits provided by CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896, modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The
ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement
rule consistent with the court's opinion was developed. While EPA
worked on developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued to
be implemented with the NOX annual and ozone season trading
programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual trading
program beginning in 2010.
    Following on the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and address the
good neighbor provisions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). Through FIPs, CSAPR required EGUs in eastern
states, including South Carolina, to meet annual and ozone season
NOX emission budgets and annual SO2 emission
budgets implemented through new trading programs. Implementation of
CSAPR began in January 1, 2015.\5\ CSAPR also contained provisions that
would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with
the implementation of the CSAPR compliance requirements. Participation
by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading program for ozone season
NOX generally addressed the state's obligation under the
NOX SIP Call for EGUs. CSAPR did not initially contain
provisions allowing states to incorporate large non-EGUs into that
trading program to meet the requirements of the NOX SIP Call
for non-EGUs. EPA also stopped administering CAIR trading programs with
respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) and 81 FR 13275 (March
14, 2016).
    \6\ See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) and 81 FR 13275 (March
14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After litigation that reached the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit
generally upheld CSAPR but remanded several state budgets to EPA for
reconsideration, including the Phase 2 ozone season NOX
budget for South Carolina. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118, 129-30 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA addressed the remanded ozone
season NOX budgets in the CSAPR Update, which also partially
addressed eastern states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The air quality modeling for
the CSAPR Update projected that South Carolina would not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
downwind areas for either the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 2008 ozone NAAQS
as of 2017, and the EGUs in the state therefore are no longer subject
to a NOX ozone season trading program under either CSAPR or
the CSAPR Update.\7\ The CSAPR Update also reestablished an option for
most states to meet their ongoing obligations for non-EGUs under the
NOX SIP Call by including the units in the CSAPR Update
trading program, but since South Carolina's EGUs do not participate in
that trading program, the option is not available to South Carolina.
Because South Carolina's EGUs and non-EGUs no longer participate in any
CSAPR or CSAPR Update trading program for ozone season NOX
emissions, the NOX SIP Call regulations at 40 CFR
51.121(r)(2) as well as anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(f)
and 40 CFR 51.1105(e) require these sources to maintain compliance with
NOX SIP Call requirements in some other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In the CSAPR Update, EPA relieved EGUs in South Carolina
from the obligation to participate in the original CSAPR
NOX ozone season trading program for purposes of
addressing the good neighbor requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and did not require the EGUs to participate in the new CSAPR Update
trading program for purposes of addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See
40 CFR 52.38(b)(2)(ii)-(iii). EGUs in South Carolina remain subject
to CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and
SO2 emissions for purposes of addressing the
PM2.5 NAAQS under the state trading program rules
codified in South Carolina regulation 61-62.97 that were adopted
into the State's SIP. See 82 FR 47936. EPA acknowledges the D.C.
Circuit's decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (Sept. 13,
2019), remanding the CSAPR Update with respect to the adequacy of
the rulemaking to address the good neighbor obligations with respect
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS; however, the court's decision does not
address the determinations made in the CSAPR Update regarding
state's obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as those
determinations were not challenged in the course of the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) of the NOX SIP Call
regulations as originally promulgated, where a state's SIP contains
control measures for EGUs and large non-EGUs, the SIP must also require
these sources to monitor emissions according to the provisions of 40
CFR part 75, which generally entails the use of continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS). South Carolina triggered this requirement by
including control measures in their SIP for these types of sources, and
the requirement has remained in effect despite the discontinuation of
the NOX Budget Trading Program after the 2008 ozone season.
On March 8, 2019, EPA revised some of the regulations that were
originally promulgated in 1998 to implement the NOX SIP
Call.\8\ The revision gave states covered by the NOX SIP
Call greater flexibility concerning the form of the NOX
emissions monitoring requirements that the states must include in their
SIPs for certain emissions sources. The revision amends 40 CFR
51.121(i)(4) to make Part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
optional, such that SIPs may establish alternative monitoring
requirements for NOX SIP Call budget units that meet the
general requirements of 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1). Under the
updated provision, a state's implementation plan would still need to
include some form of emissions monitoring requirements for these types
of sources, consistent with the NOX SIP Call's general
enforceability and monitoring requirements at Sec.  51.121(f)(1) and
(i)(1), respectively, but states would no longer be required to satisfy
these general NOX SIP Call requirements specifically through
the adoption of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State
Implementation Plans Required Under the NOX SIP Call,''
84 FR 8422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why is EPA proposing these actions?

    SC DHEC's April 12, 2019, and July 11, 2019 \9\ letters request
that EPA update South Carolina's SIP to reflect the reinstated
NOX SIP Call requirements at Regulation 61-62, ``Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Standards,'' provide additional
monitoring flexibilities for certain units subject to the State's
NOX SIP Call regulations, and remove CAIR requirements.
Additionally, the July 11, 2019 submission includes a demonstration
under CAA section 110(l) intended to show that the April 12, 2019 SIP
revision does not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. As
discussed further below, EPA has reviewed these submittals,
preliminarily finds them consistent with the CAA and regulations
governing the NOX SIP Call, and is proposing to approve
them, incorporate the NOX SIP call regulations into the
State's SIP, and remove the CAIR regulations from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This submission also includes amended regulations which are
not part of the federally-approved SIP and are not addressed in this
document such as: Amended Regulation 61-62.61, ``South Carolina
Designated Facility Plan and New Source Performance Standards;''
amended Regulation 61-62.63, ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (``NESHAP'') for Source Categories;''
amended Regulation 61-62.68, ``Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions;'' and amended Regulation 61-62.70, ``Title V Operating
Permit Program.''

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

III. Analysis of South Carolina's Submittals

    South Carolina's submittals request EPA approve revisions to the
State's SIP that: (1) Address the State's ongoing NOX SIP
Call obligations for existing and new large non-EGUs and EGUs by
reinstating applicable portions of the State's original NOX
SIP Call regulations at South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96, Subparts A
through I; (2) rescind CAIR regulations at South Carolina Regulations
61-62.96, Subparts AA through II, AAA through III, and AAAA through
IIII; and (3) adopt an alternative monitoring option for certain large
non-EGUs at South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96, Subpart H, Section
96.70. Specifically, SC DHEC updated the reinstated regulations to make
the portion of the budget assigned to large non-EGUs and EGUs under the
NOX Budget Trading Program enforceable without an allowance
trading mechanism (i.e., rescinded portions of its NOX
Budget Trading Program regulations pertaining to individual unit
allowance allocations and trading). Also included in the regulations
are provisions that require continued monitoring and reporting of ozone
season NOX mass emissions under 40 CFR part 75, with the
following exception. Specifically, the regulations provide any
NOX SIP Call budget units that (1) are not required by 40
CFR 51.121, South Carolina Regulation 61-62.97, or other regulation to
comply with part 75 and (2) are subject to new source performance
standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D or subpart Db, the
option to instead monitor and report their ozone season NOX
mass emissions in accordance with the applicable NSPS subpart.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ South Carolina adopted this alternative monitoring and
reporting option to be consistent with the NOX SIP Call
revision. See 84 FR 8422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Revisions Related to the NOX SIP Call

    SC DHEC has revised Regulation 61-62 to address the NOX
SIP Call's requirements with respect to existing and new large EGUs and
large non-EGUs, and has requested EPA approve these revisions into the
SIP. EPA proposes to find that South Carolina's revised rules at
Regulation 61-62.96, Subparts A through I, ``Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Budget Program'' are consistent with South Carolina's
obligation to demonstrate continued compliance with NOX SIP
Call requirements for large EGUs and large non-EGUs and EPA's
discontinuation of the trading program under the NOX SIP
Call. Under the ongoing requirements of the NOX SIP Call,
the South Carolina SIP must: (1) Include enforceable control measures
for ozone season NOX mass emissions from existing and new
large EGUs and large non-EGUs, and (2) require those sources to monitor
and report ozone season NOX emissions. See 40 CFR
51.121(f)(2) and (i).
a. NOX SIP Call
    As discussed above, the State regulations addressing the
NOX SIP Call were formerly established at South Carolina
Regulation 61-62.96, Subparts A through I, ``Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Budget Program'' and South Carolina Regulation 61-
62.99, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program Requirements
for Stationary Sources Not in the Trading Program'' (i.e., cement
kilns). The requirements under South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96
affect EGUs and non-EGUs. South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96,
``NOX Budget Trading Program'' initially had nine subparts:
Subpart A--NOX Budget Trading Program General Provisions;
Subpart B--Authorized Account Representative for NOX Budget
Sources; Subpart C--Permits; Subpart D--Compliance Certification;
Subpart E--NOX Allowance Allocations; Subpart F--
NOX Allowance Tracking System; Subpart G--NOX
Allowance Transfers; Subpart H--Monitoring and Reporting; and Subpart
I--Individual Unit Opt-ins. Because EPA discontinued administration of
the NOX Budget trading program in 2009 in coordination with
the start of CAIR implementation, the NOX Budget trading
program can no longer be implemented. Consistent with CAIR's
provisions, South Carolina revised certain portions of South Carolina
Regulation 61-62.96 to reflect CAIR annual NOX, annual
SO2 and ozone season NOX emissions budget trading
program requirements. This revision removed South Carolina's
NOX Budget Program, Regulation 61-62.96, Subparts A through
I, and the NOX SIP Call requirements for EGUs were addressed
by South Carolina's CAIR NOX Ozone Season Program,
Regulations 61-62.96, Subparts AAAA through IIII. Further, as noted
above, the State exercised its option to include non-EGUs from the
State's NOX Budget Trading Program in the CAIR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.
    If approved into the SIP, the April 12, 2019, SIP submittal will
reinstate portions of South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96 to address
NOX SIP Call requirements with the new South Carolina
Regulation, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program.''
Specifically, the submittal reinstates previously repealed Subparts A
through I, including the applicable NOX SIP Call model rule
provisions from 40 CFR part 96, with amendments reflecting the
discontinuation of EPA's NOX SIP Call trading program and
other changes as necessary. The new and reinstated NOX SIP
Call regulation includes provisions to ensure that the State's EGUs and
large non-EGUs will continue to satisfy NOX SIP Call
requirements. South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96.40 sets the State's
EGU ozone season budget at 16,199 tons per year (tpy) and large non-EGU
ozone season budget at 3,479 tpy. It specifies that collective
emissions from all EGUs and all large non-EGUs may not exceed their
respective budgets during each control period. Regulations 61-62.96.6
and 61-62.96.70 ensure continued monitoring and reporting of
NOX emissions from covered units in accordance with 40 CFR
51.121(i). Also, SC DHEC commits in its submission to conduct an annual
review of its emission inventory data for both EGUs and large non-EGUs,
including emissions from any applicable new units, to verify the
NOX SIP Call EGU and large non-EGU ozone-season
NOX emission budgets have not been exceeded.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ By September 30 of each year, SC DHEC will conduct an
annual review of actual NOX emissions from all covered
EGUs and large non-EGUs during the previous control period,
including any new units, to ensure that the total emissions remain
below the ozone season NOX budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 61-62.96.70 of the South Carolina's reinstated
NOX SIP Call regulation requires all owners and operators of
covered NOX budget units to implement a monitoring and
reporting system necessary to attribute ozone season NOX
mass emissions to each unit in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.\12\ In
addition, the State regulation allows flexibility for a NOX
budget unit that (1) is not required by 40 CFR 51.121, South Carolina
Regulation 61-62.97, or other regulation to comply with Part 75, and
(2) is subject to Subpart D or Subpart Db of 40 CFR part 60, to instead
monitor and report ozone season NOX mass emissions in
accordance with Subpart D or Subpart Db, as applicable. Additional
information regarding increased flexibility in monitoring is discussed
in section III.1.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ SC DHEC states that all of South Carolina's EGUs must
continue Part 75 monitoring and reporting pursuant to applicable
CSAPR requirements. See 81 FR 74583 (October 26, 2016). In addition,
SC DHEC states that any affected boiler that is not subject to
Subpart D or Db (due to grandfathering or otherwise) must continue
to comply with Part 75 monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, SC DHEC includes several administrative changes in its
revised regulation. In South Carolina's original NOX SIP
Call regulation, SC DHEC

excluded Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 4911 and 4931
in Section 96.4(a)(1)(i) from the NOX Budget Program. The
July 11, 2019 SIP revision contains a list of all affected EGUs and
large non-EGUs covered under the NOX SIP Call and clarifies
its intention for the regulation to apply, as originally applied, to
EGU and large non-EGU units listed in its CAA section 110(l) analysis.
SC DHEC further clarified that it interprets the language in Section
96.4(b)(4) such that a unit would lose an exemption under 69.4(b)
(i.e., an exemption to the applicability of 61-62.96 Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Budget Program based on fuel use and operating hour
limitations) if it fails to comply with restrictions on fuel use or
operating hours. Further, SC DHEC states that the exemption in Section
96.4(b)(2)(ii) is not retroactive to the beginning of the ozone season
if a source takes an emission limit during a particular ozone season.
    EPA proposes to find that, as revised, South Carolina Regulation
61-62.96 meets the State's ongoing obligations under the NOX
SIP Call. Specifically, EPA proposes to find that the revised rules
meet the requirement under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) for enforceable limits
on the subject units' collective emissions of ozone season
NOX mass emissions. In the next section, EPA discusses South
Carolina's revisions to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1)
and (i)(1) for monitoring sufficient to ensure compliance with those
limits.
b. Revisions Related to NOX SIP Call Monitoring
    As discussed above, Section 61-62.96.70 of South Carolina's
reinstated NOX SIP Call regulation requires all owners and
operators of covered NOX budget units to implement a
monitoring and reporting system necessary to attribute ozone season
NOX mass emissions to each unit in accordance with 40 CFR
part 75 with the following exception. The regulation provides any South
Carolina NOX SIP Call budget units that (1) are not required
by 40 CFR 51.121, South Carolina Regulation 61-62.97, or other
regulation to comply with Part 75 and (2) are subject to new source
performance standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D or subpart
Db, the option to instead monitor and report their ozone season
NOX mass emissions in accordance with the applicable NSPS
subpart.\13\ The monitoring requirements for each source will be
specified in each source's NOX SIP Call permit condition.
More specifically, SC DHEC will require facilities with large non-EGUs
requesting the alternative monitoring to calculate the NOX
mass emissions (in tons) for each ozone season using NOX
emission rate data obtained in accordance with the applicable NSPS
subpart and to report the total to SC DHEC no later than March 31
following that ozone season. The reporting time period aligns with
annual emissions inventory reporting as required by South Carolina
Regulation 61-62.1, Section III(B)(1). The NOX emission rate
would be calculated from Part 60 Continuous Emission Monitoring System
(CEMS) measurements using Method 19 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Those state sources otherwise required to comply with Part
75 monitoring requirements (including all covered EGUs) will
continue to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 11, 2019 SIP submittal, South Carolina provided an
analysis to demonstrate that the monitoring flexibilities comply with
CAA section 110(l). CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve
a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP),
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Additionally, section
110(l) makes clear that each SIP revision is subject to the
requirements of section 110(l). EPA generally considers whether the SIP
revision would worsen, preserve, or improve the status quo in air
quality.
    EPA does not anticipate emissions increases from the revisions to
the South Carolina SIP a result of the alternative monitoring
flexibilities. Several of the original large non-EGU sources have shut
down and the remaining existing facilities, through compliance with
federal permit restrictions, have combined potentials-to-emit that are
well below the NOX SIP Call budget levels. The large non-EGU
ozone season emissions have been low relative to the State's
NOX SIP Call budget.\14\ For example, as indicated in EPA's
NOX SIP Call amendment proposal, total 2017 emissions from
NOX SIP Call budget units not otherwise subject to Part 75
represent only 5.3 percent of South Carolina's NOX SIP Call
annual emission budget.\15\ With the total potentials-to-emit for units
covered by the NOX SIP Call well below the NOX
SIP Call budgeted levels, SC DHEC notes that the preexisting
NOX SIP Call budgets and Part 75 monitoring and reporting
requirements have not themselves been a key factor in limiting
emissions, and EPA believes that the budgets or the Part 75 monitoring
and reporting requirements are not limiting emissions from affected
units. SC DHEC also cites to the small amount of emissions attributable
to sources that will be able to use the additional flexibilities, as
well as the general effectiveness of Part 60 monitoring. SC DHEC states
the alternative Part 60 monitoring flexibility allowed under the
reinstated NOX SIP Call provisions will not interfere with
continued attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ SC DHEC estimated that the maximum ozone-season emissions
total from all 14 large non-EGU units, if operated for the entire
ozone season, would be 2,419 tons, well below the 3,479 tpy budget.
    \15\ 82 FR 41620, 41621 (September 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis of South Carolina's regulations concerning
monitoring to comply with the NOX SIP Call follows the
requirements outlined in EPA's March 8, 2019 rule amending the
NOX SIP Call's monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
51.121(i)(4). In that rule, EPA observed that, under 40 CFR 51.121(i),
the principal criterion for approval of monitoring and reporting
requirements for purposes of the NOX SIP Call following the
amendments would be that the requirements must be sufficient to
determine whether sources are in compliance with the control measures
adopted to achieve the required emissions reductions.\16\ EPA noted
that for purposes of demonstrating the sufficiency of the monitoring
and reporting requirements, a state generally would be able to cite the
same types of data (e.g., data indicating substantial compliance
margins) that EPA cited to support finalizing the amendments to the
NOX SIP Call regulations.\17\ In addition, EPA pointed out
the need to consider whether the regulation contains provisions to
avoid gaps in required monitoring and whether any monitoring approach
that uses emissions factors is designed to avoid any bias toward
understatement of emissions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 84 FR at 8428-29.
    \17\ Id. n.30.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this document, EPA proposes to find that, as revised, South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.96 meets the State's ongoing obligations
under the NOX SIP Call with respect to monitoring to ensure
compliance with required limitations and proposes to approve the
alternate monitoring approach described above into South Carolina's
SIP. If finalized, South Carolina's adopted monitoring flexibility
would be available only to those large non-EGU sources that are not
otherwise required to continue Part 75 monitoring and reporting. EPA's
review preliminarily

concludes that South Carolina's revised regulations are sufficient to
determine whether sources are in compliance with the control measures
adopted to achieve the required emissions reductions; South Carolina
has cited to data indicating substantial compliance margins; South
Carolina's regulations avoid gaps in required monitoring; and South
Carolina's regulations do not use emissions factors for alternative
monitoring. In addition, EPA agrees with SC DHEC's conclusion that,
because the large non-EGUs' combined maximum allowable emissions are
well below the NOX SIP Call budget, neither the
NOX SIP Call nor the previous monitoring requirements have
been driving current emission levels down. EPA therefore agrees that no
increase in emissions will result from the added option to monitor and
report under Part 60 in lieu of Part 75. Thus, EPA proposes to conclude
that South Carolina's monitoring regulations are sufficient to provide
adequate monitoring under the NOX SIP call and comply with
40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and (i). EPA also preliminarily concludes that
South Carolina's monitoring regulations will not interfere with
continued attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or any other applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act.

2. Removal of CAIR

    South Carolina's April 12, 2019 submission also seeks to remove the
SIP-approved portions of the State trading program rules adopted to
implement CAIR from South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96 Subparts AA
through II, AAA through III, and AAAA through IIII. With regard to the
annual programs, the State requests removal because the CAIR annual
programs have been replaced by the CSAPR annual programs. With respect
to the ozone season program, South Carolina's April 12, 2019 submission
seeks to remove the SIP-approved portions of the State's trading
program rules because, if approved, South Carolina's state control
program would address outstanding NOX SIP Call requirements.
Further, South Carolina's July 11, 2019 SIP submission contains a
technical demonstration showing that no increase in NOX
ozone season emissions is expected to result from the removal of CAIR
because the combined potential to emit from covered sources remains
below CAIR budget levels, and historical data shows that covered
sources' emissions have remained well below budgeted levels.
    In this document, EPA proposes to approve the removal of these
CAIR-related provisions from South Carolina's SIP. As explained above,
the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA in 2008, however, the court left
CAIR in place while EPA worked to develop a new interstate transport
rule. CSAPR was promulgated to respond to the court's concerns and to
replace CAIR. CAIR was implemented through the 2014 compliance periods
and was replaced by CSAPR on January 1, 2015. EPA promulgated
regulations to sunset the CAIR trading programs and is no longer
administering those trading programs, and the programs therefore can no
longer be implemented for South Carolina sources. Further, EPA has
reviewed South Carolina's demonstration and preliminarily agrees that
no emissions increase is expected to result from removal of CAIR. In
particular, ozone season NOX mass emissions data reported to
EPA for South Carolina's large EGUs and large non-EGUs indicate that
collective emissions have consistently been less than 10,000 tons in
every year since 2012, well below the state's budgets for these units
under both the NOX SIP Call and CAIR, indicating that the
state's CAIR rules for ozone season NOX would not be driving
current emission levels even if they were capable of implementation.
EPA therefore preliminarily concludes that removal of CAIR from South
Carolina's SIP will not result in any increase in emissions and
therefore will not interfere with continued attainment of the NAAQS or
any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act, and proposes to
approve the removal of South Carolina's SIP provisions related to CAIR.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96 entitled, ``Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) Budget Program,'' effective January 25, 2019,
which reinstates applicable portions of EPA's 40 CFR part 96
NOX SIP Call regulations and establishes alternative
emission monitoring requirements for certain units. Also, in this
document, EPA is proposing to remove South Carolina Regulation 61-62.96
Subparts AA through II, AAA through III, and AAAA through IIII
entitled, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Budget Trading Program,'' from the South Carolina
State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. EPA has made, and
will continue to make the State Implementation Plan generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's SIP April 12, 2019 and
July 11, 2019 SIP revisions and to incorporate Regulation 61-62.96
entitled, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program,'' and
Regulation 61-62.96, Subpart H, Section 96.70 into the SIP. In
addition, EPA is proposing to remove the State's CAIR regulations at
Regulation 61-62.96 Subparts AA through II, AAA through III, and AAAA
through IIII entitled, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Budget Trading Program,'' from the SIP. EPA is
proposing to conclude that these revisions will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these
actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having significant economic impacts
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Because these actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, this proposed action for the State of South
Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this action
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Trial law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is
located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120
(Settlement Act), ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to impose regulations
applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those
imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the
Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

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

Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-08906 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2762-2763]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15Fi-2--Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-
Based Swap Transactions, SEC File No. 270-633, OMB Control No. 3235-
0713

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
15Fi-2 (17 CFR 240.15Fi-2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15Fi-2 requires security-based swaps (``SBS'') dealers and
major SBS participants (collectively, ``SBS Entities'') to provide to
their counterparties a trade acknowledgment, to provide prompt
verification of the terms provided in a trade acknowledgment of
transactions from other SBS Entities, and to have written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to obtain prompt verification
of the terms provided in a trade acknowledgment. The Rule promotes the
efficient operation of the SBS market and facilitate market
participants' management of their SBS-related risk.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 50 entities fit within
the definition of SBS dealer, and up to five entities fit within the
definition of major SBS participant. Thus, we expect that approximately
55 entities will be required to register with the Commission as SBS
Entities and will be subject to the trade acknowledgment provision and
verification requirements of Rule 15Fi-2. The total estimated annual
burden of Rule 15Fi-2 is 34,155 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: January 10, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00559 Filed 1-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 14875]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4257-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Alaska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4257-DR), dated February 17,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 17, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 17, 2016, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Alaska resulting from a severe storm during the period of
December 12-15, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Alaska.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Sharon Loper, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following area of the State of Alaska have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Pribilof Islands Regional Education Attendance Area for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Alaska are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-06162 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16320-16321]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC14-68-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company, Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Partners GP Limited.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Request for Shortened Comment Period and
Expedited Action of Upper Peninsula Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2249-003.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Amendment to January 30, 2014 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Portland General Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2290-002; ER10-2187-001.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Amendment to July 1, 2013 Triennial Market Power
Update for the Northwest Region of the Avista Corporation, et. al.
    Filed Date: 10/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20131016-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2374-004; ER10-1533-005.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Third Amendment to June 28, 2013 Triennial Updated
Market Power Analysis in the Northwest Region of Puget Sound Energy,
Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-58-002.
    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company, West Penn Power Company,
Monongahela Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: FirstEnergy and Potomac Edison Co submit compliance
filing per 11/21/2013 Order to be effective 2/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1309-000.
    Applicants: Singer Energy Group, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to February 11, 2014 Singer Energy Group,
LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1395-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2852 Substitute--The Energy Authority & Westar Att AM
to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140318-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1461-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Errata to Correct OATT Att. DD Section 5.14 to be
effective 5/10/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1508-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 2014-3-14--Rev Sch 7--Clean-up to be effective 1/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1509-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Orange and Rockland Undergrounding Rate 3.14.14 to be
effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1510-000.
    Applicants: RE Rosamond One LLC.
    Description: Order No. 784 Compliance Filing to be effective 3/15/
2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1511-000.
    Applicants: RE Rosamond Two LLC.
    Description: Order No. 784 Compliance Filing to be effective 3/15/
2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1512-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2014-03-14--IID--DTBAOA to be effective 5/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1513-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2825 KMEA and Westar Energy Meter Agent Agreement to
be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1514-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: SGIA & Distribution Service Agreement with Adelanto
Greenworks A LLC to be effective 5/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140317-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1515-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Request for Waiver of FERC Form No. 1 and Relevant
Part 141 Requirements of Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1516-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Evangeline LLC.
    Description: Cancellation of Cleco Evangeline LLC MBR tariff to be
effective 3/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140318-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1517-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Cancellation of Service Schedule I and Operating
Procedure 9 of the EPE GFA to be effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140318-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1518-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Transmission service agreement between PNM and EPE to
be effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140318-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES14-28-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Securities
under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Upper Peninsula Power
Company.
    Filed Date: 3/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140314-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings

    Docket Numbers: RD14-8-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Interpretation of Regional Reliability
Standard TOP-007-WECC-1.
    Filed Date: 3/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140312-5338.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/14.

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

    Dated: March 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06531 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 41361]
[DOCID:fr18jy08-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0265]

Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 540.575 Fish--Fresh and Frozen--
Adulteration Involving Decomposition (CPG 7108.05); Withdrawal

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 540.575 Fish--Fresh and
Frozen--Adulteration Involving Decomposition (CPG 7108.05) (CPG Sec.
540.575). This action is being taken because the guidance in CPG Sec.
540.575 relating to decomposition in fresh and frozen fish is not
current.

DATES:  The withdrawal is effective July 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of CPG Sec.
540.575 to the Division of Compliance Policy (HFC-230), Office of
Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of CPG Sec. 540.575 may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert D. Samuels, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-325), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy, College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  FDA is withdrawing CPG Sec. 540.575 because
the CPG does not provide FDA staff with current agency regulatory
action guidance relating to decomposition in fresh and frozen fish.
    FDA has developed a draft CPG Sec. 540.370 Fish and Fishery
Products--Decomposition (draft CPG Sec. 540.370) to provide guidance
for FDA staff relating to decomposition in fresh and frozen fish as
well as other fishery products. Draft CPG Sec. 540.370, when final,
will provide FDA staff with current regulatory action guidance. Draft
CPG Sec. 540.370 is available for comment, as indicated in the notice
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 30, 2008.
Margaret O'K. Glavin,
Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8-16456 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: January 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 968-969]
[DOCID:fr09ja09-70]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 30b2-1; SEC File No. 270-213; OMB Control No. 3235-0220.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 30b2-1 (17 CFR 270.30b2-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) requires the filing of four copies of every
periodic or interim report transmitted by or on behalf of any
registered investment company to its stockholders.\1\ This requirement
ensures that the Commission has information in its files to perform its
regulatory functions and to apprise investors of the operational and
financial condition of a registered investment companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Most filings are made via the Commission's electronic filing
system; therefore, paper filings under Rule 30b2-1 occur only in
exceptional circumstances. Electronic filing eliminates the need for
multiple copies of filings.
    \2\ Annual and periodic reports to the Commission become part of
its public files and, therefore, are available for use by
prospective investors and stockholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registered management investment companies are required to send
reports to stockholders at least twice annually. In addition, under
rule 30b2-1, each registered investment company is required to file
with the Commission Form N-CSR (17 CFR 274.128), certifying the
financial statements.\3\ The annual burden of filing the reports is
included in the burden estimate for Form N-CSR; however, we are
requesting one burden hour remain in inventory for administrative
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 30b2-1(a) [17 CFR 270.30b2-1(a)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden estimate for rule 30b2-1 is made solely for the purposes
of the Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or even
representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and
forms.
    The collection of information under rule 30b2-1 is mandatory. The
information provided by rule 30b2-1 is not kept confidential. 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.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO,
Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General
Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    January 5, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-160 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P