			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 23, 2007

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-26716

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Joint Application of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (AMERICAN)  and ALIA –
THE ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES (ROYAL JORDANIAN) filed 12/21/06 for:

XX   Exemption for American for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to
provide the following services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail (1)
between points in Jordan, (2) between points in Jordan and points in the
United States, and (3) between points in Jordan and points in third
countries (either nonstop or via intermediate points), and the right to
integrate this authority with their existing exemption and certificate
authority.  American seeks this authority to display its designator code
on flights operated by Royal Jordanian.

XX   Exemption for Royal Jordanian under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail (1)
between points in the United States,

(2) between points in the United States and points in Jordan, and (3)
between points in the United States and points in third countries
(either nonstop or via intermediate points in third countries), and the
right to integrate this authority with their existing foreign air
carrier permits and exemptions.  Royal Jordanian seeks this authority to
display its designator code on flights operated by American.   Royal
Jordanian also requests exemption authority for at least two years.

XX   Statement of authorization for blanket code-share authority for
American under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Display Royal Jordanian’s “RJ*” designator code in conjunction
with foreign air transportation on flights operated by American (or its
affiliates) (1) between points in the United States, (2) between points
in the United States and points in Jordan, and (3) between points in the
United States and points in third countries (either nonstop or via
intermediate points in third countries).

XX   Statement of authorization for blanket code-share authority for
Royal Jordanian under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Display American’s “AA” designator code in conjunction with
foreign air transportation on flights operated by Royal Jordanian (1)
between points in Jordan, (2) between points in Jordan and points in the
United States (either nonstop or via intermediate points in third
countries), and (3) between points in Jordan and points in third
countries (either nonstop or via intermediate points).

Applicant reps: Carl B. Nelson<PHONE_NUMBER> (American)   DOT Analyst:
 Thuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

	            Michael J. Holland<PHONE_NUMBER> (Royal Jordanian)

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted requests of American and Royal Jordanian for exemption
authority (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Granted requests of American Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive
Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle for route integration (subject to
conditions, see below)

XX  Dismissed American’s request for route integration

XX  Dismissed Royal Jordanian’s request for route integration

XX  Granted requests of American and Royal Jordanian for statements of
authorization (subject to conditions, see below)

The above actions granting exemption authority to American and Royal
Jordanian were effective when taken:

March 23, 2007, through March 23, 2009.

The above actions granting route integration authority to American Eagle
Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle were
effective when taken: March 23, 2007, through March 23, 2009.

The above actions granting statements of authorization to American and
Royal Jordanian were effective when taken: March 23, 2007, and will
remain in effect indefinitely, subject to the conditions below.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Jordan.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:     		XX  American’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Royal Jordanian’s foreign air carrier permit

		XX  Standard U.S. Exemption Conditions (attached as Appendix B)

		XX  Standard Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions (attached as
Appendix C)

		XX  Conditions for Statements of Authorization (see below)

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

Conditions:  The statements of authorization granted are subject to the
following conditions:

(a) The statements of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) American and Royal Jordanian continue to hold the necessary
underlying authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and
(ii) the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations
remains in effect.

(b) American and/or Royal Jordanian must promptly notify the Department
(Office of International Aviation) if the code-share agreement providing
for the code-share operations is no longer effective or if the carriers
decide to cease operating all or a portion of the approved code-share
services.  Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2006-26716.

(c) American and/or Royal Jordanian must notify the Department no later
than 30 days before they begin any new code-share service under the
code-share services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the
market(s) to be served, which carrier will be operating the aircraft in
the code-share market added, and the date on which the service will
begin.  Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2006-26716.

(d) The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in the computer reservation systems and
elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the
carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of
the code-share journey for all obligations established in its contract
of carriage with the passenger; that the passenger liability of the
operating carrier be unaffected; and that the operating carrier shall
not permit the code of its U.S. code-sharing partner to be carried on
any flight that enters, departs, or transits the airspace of any area
for whose airspace the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a
flight prohibition.

(e) Any service provided shall be consistent with all applicable
agreements between the United States and Jordan, and all applicable
agreements with other foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (i)
nothing in the award of the blanket statement of authorization to
American should be construed as conferring upon American rights
(including code-share, fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights)
to serve markets where U.S. carrier rights are limited unless American
notifies us of its intent to serve such market and unless and until the
Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to
determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights;
and (ii) should there be a request by any carrier to use the
limited-entry route rights that are included in American’s authority
by virtue of the blanket statement of authorization granted here, but
that are not being used by American, the holding of such authority will
not be considered as providing any preference for American in a carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

(f) The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither American nor Royal Jordanian shall give any force or effect to
any contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to these
conditions.

The route integration authority granted here is subject to the condition
that any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with
all applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority requested should be construed as conferring upon
American Eagle Airlines, Inc. or Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American
Eagle rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights)
to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless the carrier
wishing to serve such a market (American Eagle Airlines, Inc. or
Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle, as the case may be),
notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless
and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection
procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to
exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier
to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. or Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American
Eagle’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted
here, but that are not then being used by American Eagle Airlines, Inc.
or Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle, the holding of such
authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any
preference for American Eagle Airlines, Inc. or Executive Airlines, Inc.
d/b/a American Eagle in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to
determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at
issue.

Remarks: We note that American has conducted a safety audit of Royal
Jordanian under the Department’s Code-Share Safety Audit Program, and
the FAA has advised that it has reviewed the relevant audit and found it
to be acceptable.

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

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicants qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or dismissed, we denied all requests in the
referenced Dockets.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Appendix A

CODE-SHARE ROUTES

Appendix B

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/2006

Appendix C

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and 36 and 49 CFR Part 1546 or
1550, as applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign
airport that would be the holder’s last point of departure for the
United States, contact its International Principal Security Inspector
(IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the
Transportation Security Administration has determined that security is
adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

11/2006

 The joint applicants include American affiliates American Eagle
Airlines, Inc., and Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle.

 The code-share partners provided a listing of specific code-share
markets that they intend initially to serve beginning

March 25, 2007 under this arrangement.  We have reproduced it as
Appendix A of this Notice.

 See footnote 3.

 By Order 2006-1-1, the Department awarded the carrier a blanket route
integration certificate.

 As a standard practice, the Department does not grant route integration
to foreign carriers; therefore we are dismissing Royal Jordanian’s
application for route integration.

 We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.

 The notice referenced in condition (c) above may
b獵摥映牯琠楨⁳潮楴楦慣楴湯മ


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42715]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9784-002]

North American Hydro Holdings, LLC; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and
Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment to Exemption.
    b. Project No: 9784-002.
    c. Date Filed: June 16, 2012; supplemented June 29, 2012.
    d. Applicant: North American Hydro Holdings, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Manawa Dam Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the North Branch of the
Little Wolf River in Waupaca County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Scott Klabunde, Vice President, Operations,
North American Hydro Holdings, LLC, 116 State Street, P.O. Box 167,
Neshkoro, WI 54960,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John K. Novak at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests, and comments
is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: The Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-9784-002) on any motions,
protests, or comments filed.
    k. Description of Application: North American Hydro Holdings, LLC
is requesting a temporary variance in the operating range of 99.4 feet
to 99.9 feet (Wisconsin DNR datum) for the purpose of drawing down the
Manawa project reservoir to conduct needed dam safety repair work. A
drawdown of eight feet is proposed and would commence on August 1,
2012. Refill of the reservoir is expected to start by November 15,
2012. Measures will be in place to protect environmental resources in
the project impoundment and listed mussel species downstream of the dam
during the drawdown period.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Motions to Intervene, Protests, and Comments: Anyone may submit
a motion to intervene, protest, or comments in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any motions to intervene,
protests, or comments must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must: (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,''
``PROTEST,'' or ``COMMENTS'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the
heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person intervening, protesting, or
commenting; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All motions to intervene, protests, or
comments must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All motions to intervene,
protests, or comments should relate to project works which are the
subject of the application. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any motion to
intervene or protest must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: July 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17654 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 53241-53242]
[DOCID:fr15se08-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0649; FRL-8715-6]

Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), Human Health Subcommittee
Meetings--Fall 2008 and Winter 2009

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of three meetings of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Human Health Subcommittee.

DATES: The first meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on
Friday, October 10, 2008, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. The second
meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Monday, December 1,
2008, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. EST. The third meeting (face-to-face) will
begin on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 and conclude on Thursday, January
15, 2009. The meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished.
Requests for the draft agendas or for making oral presentations at the
meetings will be accepted up to one business day before each meeting.

ADDRESSES: The face-to-face meeting will be held at the EPA's RTP Main
Campus Facility, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0649, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0649.
     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0649.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC), Human Health Subcommittee

Meetings--Fall 2008 and Winter 2009 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0649.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-
0649.

    Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2008-0649. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC), Human Health Subcommittee Meetings--Fall 2008 and
Winter 2009 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Heather Drumm, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at any of the meetings may contact
Heather Drumm, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact
methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the first teleconference include, but are
not limited to: Overview of materials provided to the subcommittee;
Overview of ORD; Overview of ORD's Human Health Program; Subcommittee
discussion. Proposed agenda items for the second teleconference
include, but are not limited to: Overviews of each of the four Long
Term Goals for the Human Health Research Program. Proposed agenda items
for the face-to-face meeting include, but are not limited to:
Overviews, poster sessions and client testimonials for each of the long
term goals; Subcommittee discussions. The meetings are open to the
public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Heather Drumm at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability, please
contact Heather Drumm, preferably at least ten days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Fred Hauchman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21462 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12255-12256]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1331; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-44-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, Bristol
Engine Division Turbojet Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, Bristol Engine Division (RR) Viper Mk. 601-
22 turbojet engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a review carried
out by RR of the lives of certain critical parts. This proposed AD
would require reducing the life of these parts. We are proposing this
AD to prevent life-limited part failure, damage to the engine, and
damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; or email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the
Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1331;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-44-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0243 (Correction: November 13, 2012),
dated November 12, 2012, a Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (referred to hereinafter as ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    A review, carried out by Rolls-Royce, of the lives of critical
parts of the Viper Mk. 601-22 engine, has resulted in reduced cyclic
life limits for certain critical parts.
    Operation of critical parts beyond these reduced cyclic life
limits may result in part failure, possibly resulting in the release
of high-energy debris, which may cause damage to the aeroplane and/
or injury to the occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires implementation
of the reduced cyclic life limits for the affected critical parts,
i.e., replacement of each part before the applicable reduced life
limit is exceeded, and replacement of those critical parts that have
already exceeded the reduced cyclic life limits.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    RR Alert Service Bulletin 72-A206, dated November, 2012.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
United Kingdom and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European

Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing
this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD
would require reducing the life of certain critical parts.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 32 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 0 hours
per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per hour. We are not requiring parts replacement, so parts cost is
$0. We estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $0.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, Bristol Engine Division: Docket No. FAA-
2012-1331; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-44-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 23, 2013.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, Bristol
Engine Division (RR) Viper Mk. 601-22 turbojet engines.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a review carried out by RR of the lives
of certain critical parts. We are issuing this AD to prevent life-
limited part failure, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) After the effective date of this AD, remove the following
parts before they reach their specified new, lower life limits:
compressor shaft, part number (P/N) V900766: 20,720 flight cycles
since new (CSN); compressor rear stubshaft (center bearing hub), P/
Ns V900007 and V900994: 9,600 CSN; combustion chamber outer casing,
P/Ns V950013 and V950331: 32,000 CSN.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any part
identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD into any engine, nor
return any engine to service, with the parts identified in paragraph
(e)(1) of this AD installed, if the part exceeds the new, lower life
limits specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0243 (Correction: November 13, 2012), dated November
12, 2012, and Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin 72-A206, dated
November, 2012, for related information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
249936; or email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 15, 2013.
Robert J. Ganley,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04103 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51524-51526]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0197; Airspace Docket No. 09-AAL-4]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Clarks Point, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at the
Clarks Point Airport at Clarks Point, AK. Two Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being developed for the Clarks Point
Airport at Clarks Point, AK. Additionally, one textual Obstacle
Departure Procedure (ODP) is being developed. Adoption of this proposal
would result in establishing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet
(ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at the Clarks Point Airport at
Clarks Point, AK.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2009-0197/Airspace Docket
No. 09-AAL-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0197/
Airspace Docket No. 09-AAL-4.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs)

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71, which would establish Class E airspace at
the Clarks Point Airport, Clarks Point, AK. The intended effect of this
proposal is to establish Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. and 1,200
ft. above the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the Clarks Point Airport, Clarks Point, AK.
    The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance
Branch has created two new SIAPs for the Clarks Point Airport and one
textual ODP. The SIAPs are (1) the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 18, Original and (2) the RNAV
(GPS) RWY 36, Original. Textual ODPs are unnamed and are published in
the front of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above
the surface in the Clarks Point Airport area would be established by
this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain
aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Clarks Point
Airport, Clarks Point, AK.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to establish Class E airspace at Clarks Point Airport,
Clarks Point, AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely
and efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Clarks Point, AK [New]

Clarks Point Airport, Clarks Point, AK
    (Lat. 58[deg]50[min]01[sec] N., long. 158[deg]31[min]46[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Clarks Point Airport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
73-mile radius of the Clarks Point Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on September 18, 2009.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E9-24179 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20831-20833]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3133-033]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, Errol Hydro Co., LLC; Notice of
Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 3133-033.
    c. Date filed: July 30, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC and Errol Hydro Co.,
LLC (the licensees).
    e. Name of Project: Errol Hydroelectric Project (Errol Project).
    f. Location: The Errol Project is located on the Androscoggin River
and Umbagog Lake, near the Town of Errol, and Township of Cambridge,
NH, in Coos Wing County, New Hampshire and the Towns of Magalloway
Plantation and Upton in Oxford County, Maine. The project occupies
3,285 acres federal land in the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Tom Uncher, Vice President, Brookfield
White Pine Hydro, LLC, Errol Hydroelectric Co., LLC, 339B Big Bay Rd.,
Queensbury, NY 12804, Phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary
terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
request. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-3133-033.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must

also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule on
July 15, 2020, revising the regulations under 40 CFR parts 1500-1518
that federal agencies use to implement the National Environmental
Policy Act (see Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the NEPA, 85 FR 43,304). The Final Rule became effective
on and applies to any NEPA process begun after September 14, 2020. An
agency may also apply the regulations to ongoing activities and
environmental documents begun before September 14, 2020, which includes
the proposed Errol Project. Commission staff intends to conduct its
NEPA review in accordance with CEQ's new regulations.
    l. The Errol Project consists of: (1) An existing dam consisting of
a 25-foot-high, 202.5-foot-long gated section separated by rock-filled
timber or concrete crib piers supporting five sluice gates and seven
deep gates, and an earthen dike with a sheet steel cut-off wall on the
upstream side, extending approximately 50 feet from the end of the
gated section of the dam to the northwestern wall of the powerhouse and
then extending another approximately 70 feet from the southeastern
powerhouse wall to the eastern embankment; (2) an approximately 9,098-
acre project impoundment with a storage capacity of 89,568 acre-feet at
a normal pond elevation of 1,247 feet, which includes an approximately
3-mile-long reach of the Androscoggin River above Errol Dam, Umbagog
Lake, and approximately 4.3 miles of the Magalloway River; (3) a
reinforced concrete powerhouse containing one horizontal double
regulated bulb turbine-generator unit with a hydraulic capacity of
2,600 cubic feet per second and an authorized installed generating
capacity of 2,031 kilowatts (kW); (4) an approximately 80-foot-long
tailrace; (5) a 3,333-kilovolt-ampere substation power transformer; and
(6) appurtenant facilities.
    The Errol Project is operated in accordance with the current
license, and three water agreements that dictate operational flows in
the watershed for other hydropower developments and for waterfowl
nesting, with an estimated annual energy production of approximately
15,944 megawatt hours. The licensees propose to operate the project
allowing for seasonal flows necessary for waterfowl nesting in Umbagog
Lake and spring runoff and does not propose any new construction to the
project. A license amendment was issued for the project in 2016 (156
FERC ] 62,045 (2016)), which approved the installation of a sixth
turbine generator unit, which would increase the total installed
capacity to 3,542.5 kW; however, the additional generator unit has not
yet been installed.
    m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. The license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) evidence of the date on which the certifying agency
received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification. Please note that the certification request must comply
with 40 CFR 121.5(b), including documentation that a pre-filing meeting
request was submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days
prior to submitting the certification request. Please note that the
certification request must be sent to the certifying authority and to
the Commission concurrently.
    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for Filing Protest,        June 2022.
 Motion to Intervene, Comments,
 Recommendations, Preliminary
 Terms and Conditions, and
 Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions.
Deadline for Filing Reply Comments  July 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 4, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07530 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Questions and Answers Q 1. § 33.102. Elaborate on procurement under EPA financial assistance agreements. Which programs does this include? Is it just the programs under the 8 and 10 percent statutes?

A 1. " Procurement under EPA financial assistance agreements, including financial assistance agreements to capitalize revolving loan funds " refers only to EPA programs covered under EPA's 8% and 10% statutes.

EPA's 10% statute relates to any procurement for research relating to the requirements of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990.

EPA's 8% statute covers procurements under all other EPA financial assistance programs, e. g., Superfund, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund, as well as all other financial assistance programs established pursuant to EPA's statutes.

Q 2. § 33.103. DBE has been defined to include a Small Business Enterprise, a Small Business in a Rural Area; a Labor Surplus Area Firm, etc. Is this consistent with the remaining language in the rule? Does this mean that entities other than those owned or controlled by 2 socially and economically disadvantaged individuals would be considered DBE for the purposes of certification, good faith efforts, fair share objectives etc.?

A 2. Yes, it is consistent with the remaining language in the rule for a DBE to include a Small Business Enterprise( SBE), a Small Business in a Rural Area ( SBRA), a Labor Surplus Area Firm ( LSAF), etc.

As defined in 33.103 of the proposed rule, a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ( DBE) means an entity owned or controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual as described by Public Law 102 389 ( 42 U. S. C. § 4370d) or an entity owned and controlled b y a socially and economically disadvantaged individual as described by Title X of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( 42 U. S. C. § 7601 note); a Small Business Enterprise ( SBE); a Small Business in a Rural Area ( SBRA); or a Labor Surplus Area Firm ( LSAF), a Historically Underutilized Business ( HUB) Zone Small Business Concern, or a concern under a successor program.

In order to participate as an MBE or WBE prime or subcontractor for EPA recipients under EPA's DBE program, an entity must be properly certified ( see 33.201, 33.202( EPA's 8% statute), 33.203 ( EPA's 10% statute)). Under the proposed rule, certification 3 would only be required for MBEs and WBEs and not for SBEs, SBRAs, LSAFs or a Historically Underutilized business ( HUB) Zone Small Business Concern. For EPA's 10% statute, a disabled American owned business would have to get certified by EPA because it is presumed to be a DBE regardless of whether it in fact is owned by a Black American, Hispanic American, Native American, Asian American or a woman. Those types of businesses are treated as MBEs/ WBEs because contracts awarded to them are counted towards meeting the MBE/ WBE goals. There is no other type of DBE individual which is presumed to be an MBE/ WBE which is not owned and/ or controlled by an MBE/ WBE; there are no disabled American owned business specific goal requirements which need to be negotiated.

The good faith efforts apply to the utilization of all DBEs ( see 33.301).

Because of the wording of EPA's 8% and 10% statutes, EPA for many years has required that numerical fair share objectives be negotiated for MBEs and WBEs, but not for other types of DBEs. The proposed rule would continue that policy.

The DBE good faith efforts requirements apply to recipients of EPA financial assistance agreements and their prime contractors, if they award subcontracts. A 4 Non MBE or WBE entity ( a small Business Enterprise ( SBA), Small Business in a Rural Area ( SBRA), Labor Surplus Area Firm ( LSAF) and Historically Underutilized Business ( HUB) Zone Small Business concern (" Hub Zone concern"), or a concern under a successor program are not specifically tied to the definitions " socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" ( EPA's 10% statute) or " socially or economically disadvantaged individuals" ( EPA's 8% statute). EPA's current Part 31 " Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments ( Note  these are government wide requirements), requires good faith efforts be made by recipients and their prime contractors to contract with small, minority, women's business enterprises and labor surplus area firms. 40 CFR 31.36( e).

EPA is proposing to add Historically Underutilized Business ( HUB) zone small business concerns as well as Small Businesses in Rural Areas, a subset of small businesses. While not specifically mentioned in the current 40 CFR 31.36( e), EPA has for some time applied the good faith efforts requirement to small businesses in rural areas as a result of the enactment of Public Law 100 590, the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988 ( SBARAA). SBARAA requires Federal agencies ( such as EPA) with substantial procurement 5 or grant making authority to establish rural area business enterprise plans. EPA's Rural Area Business Enterprise Plan has applied the good faith efforts to SBRAs.

We have included a HUB Zone concern because it is our understanding that at least in the direct procurement area LSAFs are being phased out and essentially replaced by these HUB Zone concerns. Therefore, the good faith efforts would encompass them.

Q 3. § 33.104. What is the substantive importance of the availability of a waiver? What scenario has been envisioned that would make such an option applicable? In this section you have alluded to the goal of "... achieve a level of MBE and WBE participation consistent with the objectives of this part..." in apparent conflict to the underinclusiveness concerns in Adarand? What would be the purpose of a larger DBE category if the good faith efforts and fair share objectives are formulated using only the earlier MBE and WBE groups?

A 3. EPA believes that it is important from both a legal and policy perspective to allow a recipient to demonstrate that compliance with a requirement of the rule would be impractical but that it could otherwise meet the objectives of the program and is in accordance with 6 law. DOT has a similar waiver procedure. see 49 CFR 26.15. The reference to a " level of MBE and WBE participation consistent with the objectives of this part" refers to the Agency's 8% and 10% MBE/ WBE goals under EPA's respective 8% and 10% statutes.

EPA staff do not understand the last question in Q 3. The fair share objectives apply only to MBEs and WBEs ( see 33.401). The good faith efforts apply to all DBEs ( see 33.301).

As provided in section 33.203( e), individuals who are not members of a designated group can establish that they have been impeded in developing a business concern as a result of racial or ethnic discrimination. As discussed in A2 above, while fair share objectives are negotiated only for MBEs and WBEs, good faith efforts are required to be made to utilize all DBEs by recipients and their prime contractors, if they award subcontracts.

Q 4. § 33.105 107. What are the remedial actions available to EPA should a recipient fail to comply with any of the requirements? How does EPA plan to monitor and verify incidents of intimidation and retaliation?

A 4. Remedial actions available to EPA should a recipient fail to comply with any of the requirements of the 7 DBE rule include whole or partial suspension, or termination of the recipient's award. See, e. g., 40 CFR 31.43.

EPA plans to monitor incidents of intimidation and retaliation through EPA recipient reviews and investigations. EPA intends to verify incidents of intimidation and retaliation through contacting appropriate parties upon receipt of allegations of such intimidation and retaliation. In addition, Form 6100 2, which is still in draft so we have not yet formally submitted it to you ( and is not in current use) would allow a DBE subcontractor to describe to EPA any concerns it might have, for example, reasons why the DBE subcontractor believes it was terminated by the prime contractor.

Q 5. § 33.202 How do entities seeking certification establish that they are socially and economically disadvantaged? Is there a presumption used or do these entities have to provide disparities? Is this presumption revisited to verify its continuing validity?

A 5. To qualify as an MBE or WBE under EPA's 8% statute, an entity must establish that it is owned or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good character ( e. g., not a debarred company) and U. S. citizens. Historically Black Colleges and Universities ( HBCUs) qualify for 8 automatic certification as an MBE. Women are deemed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. Thus women only need to meet the ownership or control requirements of 33.203( a)( c) and demonstrate good character and U. S. citizenship. All other entities must meet the ownership and control requirements of 33.203( a)( c), as well the socially disadvantaged criteria of 33.202 ( b) and the economically disadvantaged criteria of 33.202( c). There are no " disparity" requirements to meet to qualify as an MBE or WBE.

Under EPA's 10% statute, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, women and disabled Americans are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. In addition, the following institutions are presumed to be owned and controlled by socially and economically individuals: HBCUs, Minority Institutions ( including Tribal Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions), and private and voluntary organizations.

As a result of the wording of EPA's 10% statute, the specified entities would only have to meet the ownership and control requirements of 33.203( a) and demonstrate good character and U. S. citizenship. As is the case with EPA's 8% statute, there are no " disparity" requirements to meet. 9 The presumptions established under 33.203( d) ( for Black Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Women and Disabled Americans) may be rebutted. 33.203( f), 33.209.

The differing requirements under EPA's 8% and 10% statutes arise as a result of the different wording of these statutes.

EPA MBE and WBE certifications generally last for three years after being granted. To remain on EPA's list of certified MBEs and WBEs ( see 33.206), after three years, an entity must submit a new application and receive a new certification. ( See 33.208).

EPA can initiate a certification determination whenever it receives credible information calling into question an entity's MBE or WBE eligibility ( see 33.209( a)) and can decertify the entity ( see 33.209( b)).

Q 6. § 33.203. What practical effect does the stricter requirement of ownership and control have on DBE certification? With respect to procurement under the Clean Air Act, does EPA draw a distinction between having one element of ownership and control and having both. Is it sufficient to show, under the 10% statute, that economically disadvantaged individuals both own and control an entity despite being different individuals or groups of individuals i. e. the same 10 individuals don't own and control the entity.

A 6. The practical effect of the stricter requirement under EPA's 10% requirement for an entity to establish that it is both owned and controlled by DBEs who are of good character and U. S. citizens is that unless an entity can demonstrate both elements, it cannot get certified for purposes of EPA's 10% statute. That means that entities lacking both of these elements cannot be counted towards meeting a recipient's MBE/ WBE goals. In addition, a recipient only would have to take good faith efforts towards DBEs whenever procuring construction, equipment, services and supplies. Thus, unless an entity meets both elements, a recipient would not be under any obligation to make good faith efforts to solicit such an entity whenever procuring one of the four categories under EPA's 10% statute. The need for an entity to be both owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual( s) derives from the wording of EPA's 10% statute.

In EPA's view it would not be sufficient for a DBE entity to show that it owns the company while another DBE controls it because EPA can only certify an entity for purposes of its 10% statute if that entity is both owned and controlled by the DBE seeking certification ( see 33.102, definition of a DBE, 33.203, qualification as an MBE or WBE under EPA's 10% 11 statute).

Q 7. § 33.204. What must individuals who are not members of one of the designated groups do to establish that they have been impeded in developing a business concern as a result of racial or ethnic discrimination. Is there a procedure for them to follow? Who would make the determination of their eligibility? What guidance would that individual follow? Have we disregarded the possibility of small business eligibility as in the DOT rule?

A 7. An entity that wishes to become certified by EPA as a DBE will have to complete an EPA Certification Application/ [ EPA's certification forms are not yet finalized  we will be sending then to you for review in the near future]. For example, any individual claiming social disadvantage who is not a member of a designated group would be able to explain why it believes it has personally suffered social disadvantage and economic disadvantage. The process for becoming certified as an MBE or WBE is set forth in 33.205. Small businesses ( we are assuming that you mean businesses owned and/ or controlled by a nondesignated group member) could file for MBE or WBE certification under the procedures set forth in 33.205.

Q 8. § 33.205. Will entities with existing certification 12 under SBA, DOT, or either the MBE or WBE automatically have DBE certification? Would they have to apply for a reciprocal recognition? Will EPA inform entities of any additional criteria they would still need to meet if their state, local, or tribal certifications were insufficient. What is the cost to an individual entity from seeking certification through EPA versus another federal agency or a state or local agency? How applicable would EPA certification be for someone who would later seek a state, local, tribal, or other federal agency certification? Why is it necessary, if EPA is willing to certify, to require pursuit of alternative certification prior to applying with EPA? What is the enforcement mechanism for currently certified entities to report any change in circumstances that would affect their status as a DBE?

A 8. Entities with existing SBA certifications under SBA's 8( a) Business Development Program or its Small Disadvantaged Business ( SDB) Program would have automatic MBE or WBE certification ( SBA requires U. S. citizenship for eligibility. see 13 CFR 124.101 for 8( a) program requirements and 13 CFR 124.1002( d) for SDB program requirements) upon presentation to EPA of their existing SBA certifications. Entities with existing DOT certifications would have automatic DBE certifications so long as they are U. S. citizens ( DOT allows lawfully admitted permanent residents to 13 qualify for certification under its DBE Program ( 49 CRF 26.67)). EPA envisions that an entity with a DOT certification would fill out the first part of a DBE certification Form ( section A). If the applicant is not a U. S. citizen the application states the applicant is not eligible to participate as a DBE under EPA's DBE Certification Program. In accordance with section 205( b), EPA will advise each applicant what additional criteria it would have to provide if its State, local or Tribal certifications were insufficient.

EPA does not currently possess information regarding certification costs for State or local agencies. In its ICR for this proposed rule EPA estimates the annual labor burden and costs for certification under the Agency's DBE program to be 25 hours at a cost of $ 1300. These estimates are derived from DOT's ICR estimates for certification in its analysis of burden hours ( 25 hours per certification) and costs ($ 1300 per certification) under 40 CFR Part 26. SBA's SDB program forms were estimated to take three hours to complete. EPA lacks further cost data regarding SBA's SDB program, as we have been unable to obtain a copy of SBA's ICR for that program.

EPA certification criteria are based on the wording of EPA's 8% and 10% statutes. Accordingly, EPA does not know how applicable an EPA certification would be for someone who would later seek a State, local, 14 Tribal or other federal agency certification; however, EPA believes that an EPA certification under its 10% statute requiring both ownership and control of a business should suffice for most other entities ( i. e., it would meet SBA criteria as well as DOT certification criteria). Because EPA's 8% statute only provides for ownership or control criteria, those companies which get certified under EPA's 8% statute that are not both owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual would not meet SBA or DOT Criteria.

EPA OSDBU has a small staff and does not at this time know the full extent of resources which will be available to it to administer the DBE program. Accordingly, in order to minimize the administrative burden on EPA, we are proposing to require alternative certification before an entity applies to EPA. Additionally, at the public meetings to discuss the staff draft rule held across the country, EPA representatives were informed by numerous participants that their companies already were certified ( e. g., by SBA or DOT).

Under section 33.210( a) an EPA certified entity must inform the Agency through an annual affidavit that there have been no changes in the entity's circumstances affecting its DBE status. Under section 33.210( b) an EPA certified entity must inform EPA 15 within 30 calendar days of the occurrence of any changes in circumstances affecting its DBE status. In addition under section 33.209, EPA can reevaluate the MBE or WBE status of an entity after the Agency has already certified it and can decertify such an entity.

Q 9. § 33.206. How would the list of certified MBEs and WBEs on the EPA OSDBU's home page be different from the entire group that would qualify as DBEs? Would EPA automatically count entities that are certified under SBA or DOT? Would these entities have to apply for inclusion in these lists?

A 9. EPA will maintain a list of EPA certified MBEs and WBEs under its DBE program. That list therefore may not include all potentially qualified DBEs. It would include all entities certified under SBA's DBE programs if they wished to become certified under EPA's DBE program; DOT certified DBEs would be included so long as they wished to become certified under EPA's DBE program if they are U. S. citizens.

Q 10. § 33.208. Why are entities required to submit a new application every three years if they are concurrently required to submit an annual affidavit affirming their eligibility?

A 10. EPA has modeled this provision after DOT's 16 regulatory provisions. See 49 CFR 26.83( h), and ( j). DOJ's Civil Rights Division advised EPA staff to follow DOT provisions in this regard.

Q 11. § 33.211 214. What is the efficiency gain to EPA from employing private certifiers? What are the costs of oversight to the agency from monitoring these private certifiers?

A 11. EPA has not determined whether it will or will not contract with private certifiers to assist the Agency in its determination of whether an entity applying for MBE or WBE certification is owned and/ or controlled by one or more individuals claiming disadvantaged status. To a great extent, EPA's decision will be based on the resources which will be available to it to implement to Agency's certification program. EPA currently lacks information regarding the costs of oversight to the Agency from monitoring these private certifiers, but at this time does not believe the costs would be significant.

Q 12. § 30.301 ( Good faith efforts). Number 3 requires a recipient to divide total requirements, when feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities in order to increase opportunities for DBE participation. First, the rule text should read ' economically feasible' in order to conform to the way the concept is presented in the preamble. Second, EPA needs to better define 17 economic feasibility in the preamble. Does this mean when no economic efficiency is lost due to division of requirements? Is there a particular amount of inefficiency that is acceptable in order to achieve DBE participation? How would the role of oversight be handled when a consortium of DBEs is awarded the contract?

A 12. We will change the rule text in Section 33.301( c) you have requested, i. e. to add " economically" before the word " feasible". Leaving out " economically" in the rule while including it in the preamble was an oversight on our part.

The concept of economic feasibility currently contained in 40 CFR 31.36( e) has been in EPA's Part 31 Regulations, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local Governments ( Note these are government wide requirements) since March 11, 1988. These requirements incorporate provisions of Office of Management and Budget revision of Circular A 102, " Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and local Governments". ( March 10, 1988). They also appear in OMB Circular A 102, Attachment O, January, 1981. We have been unable to find any discussion of this concept in these requirements. In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency gave guidance in implementing this provision as follows: 18 ( a) perform an analysis to identify portions of work that can be divided and performed by qualified DBEs; ( b) scrutinize the elements of the total project to develop economic units of work that are within the bonding range of DBEs; and ( c) conduct meetings, conferences, and follow ups with DBE associations and minority media to inform these groups of opportunities to provide construction, equipment, services and supplies.

EPA is unable to elaborate further on this concept at this time, except to state that what may be economically feasible for a large construction project, for example, might not be economically feasible for a separate architect/ engineering contract for that same project. It would seem, as a general matter, that larger complex construction projects may be more likely to lend themselves to situations where it would be economically feasible for them to be divided into smaller less complex types or quantities than smaller types of projects.

EPA oversight when a consortium of DBEs is awarded a contract would be similar to its oversight when a single entity is awarded a contract. See A 4 above.

Q 13. § 30.302. Does written notification prior to termination imply that recipients may disallow the prime 19 contractor from proceeding with termination of a DBE subcontractor? What are the efficiency losses from repeating the six good faith efforts versus alternative methods for selecting a replacement subcontractor? The preamble discussion of this part states that a recipient must require its contractor to continue making good faith efforts even after ' fair share' objectives have been met. I do not see this in the rule. If it were in the rule, I would question whether we want to take on additional inefficiency ( see comment above) after the objectives are met. For the moment, I would recommend striking the text from the preamble as it does not appear in the rule.

A 13. The provision in 30.302( b) that a recipient must be notified in writing by its prime contractor prior to any termination of a DBE subcontractor for convenience does not imply that recipients may disallow the prime contractor from proceeding with termination of a DBE subcontractor pursuant to EPA regulations. Recipients may impose various requirements upon their contractors so long as they do not violate EPA requirements, but 30.302 does not imply that a recipient may disallow a prime contractor from proceeding with termination of a DBE subcontractor. Please note, however, if a DBE subcontractor fails to complete work under the subcontract, the recipient must require the prime contractor to employ the six good faith efforts described in 33.301 if soliciting a 20 replacement subcontractor. In the absence of this requirement, if a recipient's own procurement procedures allow for a sole source replacement subcontractor, there would be some degree of efficiency lost. EPA lacks sufficient data to quantity such loss.

Section 33.302( d) of the rule provides that " a recipient must require its prime contractor to employ the six good faith efforts even if the contractor has achieved its fair share objectives under Subpart D." EPA believes that it important for this language to remain in the rule in order for recipients and others not to view the program as a quota program. Indeed, just because a recipient achieves its MBE/ WBE fair share goals, for example early in the year, conceivably it could achieve greater MBE/ WBE participation as time progressed later on that year.

Q 14. § 33.405. It would be more efficient to centralize the determination of base figures for the overall objective rather than have recipients generate duplicative figures in overlapping regions using inconsistent methodologies. How may capacity considerations revise the base figures? If DBEs are underutilized in regions then the base figures which are based on availability will certainly exceed the capacity figures.

A 14. EPA agrees that it might be more efficient to 21 centralize the determination of base figures for the overall objective rather than have recipients generate duplicative figures in overlapping regions using inconsistent methodologies. However, EPA lacks the resources to centralize the figures. Furthermore, EPA does not believe in a " one size fits all" determination. A significant number of States and local governments have performed disparity studies/ availability analyses to justify their own MBE/ WBE programs using methodologies which may differ from each other. EPA does not want to find itself in a position of having to tell a State for example, that its methodology may be flawed, and " here is a better way to do it" when the Agency does not believe there is one magical format to fit all.

EPA's methodology for calculating base figures is derived from DOT's methodology in its rule for participation by DBEs in DOT programs ( see 49 CFR 26.45). OMB approved DOT's methodology. Additionally, due to the uniqueness of EPA's DBE Program, the Agency has tried to accommodate States and others who have done their own disparity studies/ availability analyses.

Under 33.405( a) a recipient needs to determine its fair share objectives based on demonstrable evidence of the number of qualified MBEs and WBEs in the relevant geographic market for each of the four 22 procurement categories. It is only after calculating a base figure that a recipient needs to examine the evidence available in its jurisdiction to determine what adjustment, if any, is needed to the base figure in order to arrive at the fair share objective. Included in such evidence would be, for example, the current capacity of MBEs and WBEs to perform contract work under EPA financial assistance agreements, as measured by the volume of work MBEs and WBEs have performed in recent years. 33.405( c)( A). EPA currently does not know whether or not in a given situation where DBEs are underutilized that the base figures based on availability will exceed the capacity figures. In general, however, it would seem that the base figures would exceed the capacity figures whether DBEs are underutilized or not.

Q 15. § 33.408. Could you explain what aspects of the Good faith efforts in subpart C are race and/ or gender neutral? Does it achieve neutrality by incorporating the larger DBE category? How would race and/ or gender conscious actions differ?

A 15. All of the good faith efforts listed in subpart C, which apply to all DBEs, are race and / or gender neutral. Race and or gender conscious actions ( see 33.408) include actions such as, among other things, price incentives and technical evaluation credits. A recipient must notify EPA in advance of any race 23 and/ or gender conscious efforts it plans to take; any use of race and/ or gender conscious efforts must not result in the selection of an unqualified MBE or WBE. ( See 33.408( b)).

Q 16. § 33.410. The language of § 33.301 is sufficiently flexible to make determination of a sufficient good faith effort subject to interpretation. There is substantial discretion for recipients/ contractors in the areas of outreach and recruitment activities, time frames for contracts and delivery schedules, considering whether firms could subcontract with DBEs, and encouraging contracting with a consortium of DBEs. This introduces a level of uncertainty and unspecified risk of remedial action to recipients and prime contractors who may not achieve fair share objectives. In order to avoid this risk, recipients/ prime contractors may then treat the objective as a binding quota despite the language of this rule. Therefore, elaborating on what would constitute a good faith effort is essential.

In addition, Please prepare a side by side chart that compares the financial assistance DBE approach you are proposing to the FAR approach for procurement, showing the differences.

A 16. Both in the preamble language discussion of section 33.410, and in the rule itself, EPA has made it clear 24 that a recipient cannot be penalized solely because its MBE or WBE participation does not meet its applicable fair share objective. Remedial action can occur if the good faith effort requirements are not followed. In section 301 of the preamble EPA offers numerous examples of what in the Agency's view constitutes good faith efforts. Recipients are not allowed to use quotas in procurements under EPA's 8% or 10% statutes ( see 33.409). OMB has advised EPA staff to hold off preparing a side by side chart.

Q 17: Which State's MBE/ WBE certification programs do not meet the proposed EPA certification standard? ( This question was originally asked by Carol Dennis at the time of the initial OMB briefing and was not a part of the original written questions).

A 17: The United States Department of Transportation ( DOT) requires all states who receive DOT funding to implement and administer its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ( DBE) Certification Program at the State level. Indeed, all States have done so, and do have functioning DBE certification programs through their State Departments of Transportation. EPA's proposed certification program accepts certifications from DOT, and therefore, from its State implemented and operated program, as long as EPA's U. S. citizenship requirement is met. 25 However, aside from State Departments of Transportation DBE certification programs, most States have separate MBE/ WBE certification programs that certify contractors who wish to do business with the State outside of the area of transportation related contracting. The certification requirements for States falling into this category meet the proposed EPA standard, in large part. The differences occur in the area of EPA's personal net worth limitation. Most of the State MBE/ WBE certification requirements are silent as to net worth, while EPA proposes to require an initial and required personal net worth limitation of less than $ 750,000. There are also business size standard differences. However those differences do not render the State certification programs insufficient because the proposed EPA certification requirements do not have size standards. Finally, many of the States in this category were silent on U. S. citizenship requirements, and the proposed EPA program requires U. S. Citizenship.

The following states do not meet the proposed EPA certification requirement standards, because they do not have MBE/ WBE certification programs outside of their state department of transportation DBE certification programs: 26 1 Michigan certifies disabled owned businesses only.

2 Oklahoma certifies women owned businesses, only. Minority owned business are certified by private entities.

3 South Dakota does not certify MBE's and WBE's, but does require and accept self certifications from such entities. Alabama Maine New Mexico Alaska Michigan1 North Dakota Arkansas Montana Oklahoma 2 California Nebraska South Dakota 3 Hawaii Nevada Utah Idaho New Hampshire Vermont Louisiana Wyoming * It is important to note that these are OSDBU's initial findings. A 17 is subject to review by EPA's Office of General Counsel.


[Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 51811-51812]
[DOCID:fr11se07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-1246-000]

Harvest Windfarm, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

September 4, 2007.
    Harvest Windfarm, LLC (Harvest) filed an application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-
based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and

capacity at market-based rates. Harvest also requested waivers of
various Commission regulations. In particular, Harvest requested that
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Harvest.
    On August 31, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Harvest, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
October 1, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Harvest is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Harvest, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Harvest's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17854 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P