[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 47274]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2718-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
527 Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 23, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19433 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"C'. lZTw' Rich Leukroth ?`:$" To: Michel Stevens/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA ~~~"`~.: i~~~~:: 1,07/ 31/ 02 04: 21 PM cc: Rob Dewoskin/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: meeting RIP RE: Media needs for 8/ 13. Looks like we will need: 1) a computer with projection capability and 2) an overhead projector.

Also I'd like to tie John Schaeffer in by phone..... This would need only one phone line with a speaker phone Please send me some directions from the airport to the new facility. Thanks.

Richard W. Leukroth, Jr. Environmental Scientist / Toxicologist Chemical Control Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop 7405; Room 4328 S 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 P h o n e : 202 564 8167 FAX: 202 564 4765 E mail: leukroth. rich@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Rich Leukroth/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 07/ 31/ 02 03: 59 PM Peter Voytek To: Rich Leukroth/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cpvoytek@ crosslink. n cc: et> Subject: meeting RTP 07/ 31/ 02 07: 06 PM Rich, I just spoke with Mike concerning our presentations. We will use power point therefore, we need a laptop and projector. I would also have an overhead available. We plan LO have oullines ofour preserttativrls next week. I will send them to you for input.

Peter


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10444-10446]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0330]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Sarasota, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule of
four bridges across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; Stickney Point,
mile 68.6, Siesta Drive, mile 71.6, Cortez, mile, 87.4 and Anna Maria,
mile 89.2, Drawbridges, Sarasota, FL. The request was made to the Coast
Guard to change the operation of four drawbridges due to an increase in
vehicle traffic throughout these areas at all times of the year. This
proposed rulemaking would change the bridges' operating schedule from a
three times an hour opening schedule to a twice an hour opening
schedule throughout the year.

DATES: All comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0330 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rule, call or email, LT Ashley Holm, Coast Guard Sector St
Petersburg, Florida; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> x8105, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Metropolitan Planning Office for Sarasota and Manatee Counties,
along with the concurrence of the local mayors, have requested that the
Coast Guard consider changing the bridge operating regulations for four
bridges in this area to allow for the increase of vehicular traffic
which is no longer associated with just the tourist season as in the
past. For this reason, the Coast Guard is proposing to change the four
bridge schedules to provide for both the reasonable needs of navigation
and those of land transportation. The bridge owner, Florida Department
of Transportation, concurs with these recommendations.
    The current operating schedule for the Stickney Point Bridge, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GICW) mile 68.6, South Sarasota, Florida, opens
on demand per 33 CFR 117.5. This bridge has a vertical clearance of 18
feet in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet
between fenders. This proposed rulemaking recommends that this bridge
be changed to a twice an hour schedule from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily,
opening on the hour and half-hour.
    The current operating regulation of the Siesta Drive Bridge, mile
71.6 at Sarasota, Florida is published in 33 CFR 117.287(c). This
bridge has a vertical clearance of 25 feet in the closed position and a
horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. This proposed
rulemaking recommends that this drawbridge be changed to a twice an
hour schedule from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, opening on the quarter hour
and three-quarter hour.
    The current operating regulation of the Cortez (SR 684) Bridge,
mile 87.4, is published in 33 CFR 117.287(d)(1). This drawbridge has a
vertical clearance of 22 feet in the closed position and a horizontal
clearance of 90 feet between fenders. This proposed rulemaking
recommends that this drawbridge be changed to a twice an hour schedule
from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, opening on the hour and half-hour.
    The current operating regulation of the Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee
Avenue West) Bridge, mile 89.2, is published in 33 CFR 117.287(d)(2).
This drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 24 feet in the closed
position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. This
proposed rulemaking recommends that this drawbridge be changed to a
twice an hour schedule from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, opening on the hour
and half-hour.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations of four
drawbridges across the GCIW in the Sarasota County, Florida area. The
proposed rulemakings would allow the bridges to open twice an hour
rather than three times an hour or on-demand depending on the bridge to
assist in reducing vehicular traffic problems.
    This rule proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.287 as follows:
    The Stickney Point Bridge, GICW mile 68.6, South Sarasota, Florida,
will be added as paragraph (c)(1). This proposed rulemaking recommends
that this bridge be changed to a twice an hour schedule from 6 a.m. to
7 p.m. daily, opening on the hour and half-hour. This will align this
bridge's schedule with the opening schedule of the other bridges to the
north.
    The Siesta Drive Bridge, mile 71.6, at Sarasota, Florida, will be
added as (c)(2). This proposed rulemaking recommends that this bridge
be changed to a twice an hour schedule from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily,
opening on the quarter hour and three-quarter hour. This will align
this bridge's schedule with the opening schedule of the other bridges
to the north and south.
    Paragraph (d)(1) will be amended so that the Cortez (SR 684)
Bridge, mile 87.4, opens twice an hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily,
opening on the quarter hour and three-quarter hour. This will align
this bridge's schedule with the opening schedule of the other bridges
to the north and south.
    Paragraph (d)(2) will be amended so that the Anna Maria (SR 64)
(Manatee Avenue West) Bridge, mile 89.2, opens twice an hour from 6
a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, opening on the quarter hour and three-quarter
hour. This will align this bridge's schedule with the opening schedule
of the other bridges to the south.
    These proposed changes will meet the reasonable needs of vessel
traffic passing through the bridges while taking into account the
reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulation change will not have a significant impact on
navigation in this area as these proposed schedules will allow for
vessels to pass through these bridges with minimum disruption. This
regulatory action determination is further based on the ability that
this meets the reasonable needs of both navigation and other modes of
transportation. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass at any time.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
32(e) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D.
    Under paragraph 32(e) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.287 by revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2)
as follows:

Sec.  117.287   Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) The Stickney Point Bridge, GICW mile 68.6, South Sarasota,
Florida shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., daily,
the draw need only open on the hour and half-hour.
    (c)(2) The draw of the Siesta Drive Bridge, mile 71.6 at Sarasota,
Florida shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., daily,
the draw need only open on the hour and half-hour.
    (d)(1) The draw of the Cortez (SR 684) Bridge, mile 87.4. The draw
shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., daily, the
draw need only open on the quarter hour and three-quarter hour.
    (d)(2) The draw of the Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee Avenue West)
Bridge, mile 89.2. The draw shall open on signal, except that from 6
a.m. to 7 p.m., daily, the draw need only open on the quarter hour and
three-quarter hour.
* * * * *

S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2017-02896 Filed 2-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:	Summary for the Final Rule of Key Assumptions for EPA's Analysis of the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Biofuels Produced from Distillers Sorghum Oil
DATE: 		July 20, 2018
TO:		Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655

Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Calculations
This memo accompanies a spreadsheet in the docket that includes our calculations of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with biofuels produced from distillers sorghum oil (DSO). The spreadsheet includes the following tabs:
 Oil Extraction Rate: Calculates pounds of DSO extracted per pound of dried distillers grains and solubles (DDGS)
 Corn Substitution: Calculates pounds of corn substituted for each pound of DSO extracted
 Corn upstream GHGs: Calculates the upstream GHG emissions factor per pound of corn substituted (explained in detail below)
 Livestock Sector: Calculates the livestock sector GHGs based on the tabs listed above
 Oil extraction GHGs: Calculates the GHGs from thermal and electrical energy used to extract DSO from DDGS via centrifuge
 Distillers Sorghum Oil Transport: Calculates average GHG emissions associated with transporting DSO from an ethanol plant to a biofuel production facility
 Biodiesel Production: Calculates GHGs associated with biodiesel and heating oil production
 Hydrotreating: Calculates GHGs associated with renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and LPG production via a hydrotreating process
 LCA Results: Calculates the lifecycle GHG emissions as a sum of the emissions calculated on prior tabs
The key assumptions in this spreadsheet are discussed in section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
Calculation of upstream emissions factor for corn used as livestock feed
As discussed in the preamble, based on comments on the proposed rule EPA undertook additional analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with replacing distillers sorghum oil in livestock feed with corn. The `Oil Extraction Rate' and `Corn Substitution' tabs in the spreadsheet `Distiller Sorghum LCA' in the docket, show the analysis conducted to determine how many pounds of corn substitute for each pound of distillers sorghum oil used for biofuels instead of animal feed. To determine the GHG emissions associated with this substitution, we needed a GHG emissions factor per pound of corn used as animal feed. The calculation of this emissions factor relied on EPA's previous corn starch ethanol lifecycle analysis for the RFS program, as explained below.
EPA evaluated the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with corn starch ethanol for the March 2010 RFS2 rule (75 FR 14670). The results from that analysis were presented in terms of kilograms carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per million British thermal units (mmBtu), lower heating value (LHV) of undenatured ethanol (see Table 1). We used the following steps to convert those results to kgCO2e per pound of corn.
Table 1: Corn Starch Ethanol Lifecycle GHG Emissions Results from the March 2010 RFS2 Final Rule
Lifecycle Stage
GHG emissions (kgCO2e/mmBtu)
U.S. Crop Production
8.3
U.S. Rice CH4
(0.2)
U.S. Livestock
(3.7)
U.S. Land Use Change
(4.0)
Non-U.S. Crop Production
6.6
Non-U.S. Rice CH4
2.1
Non-U.S. Livestock
3.5
Non-U.S. Land Use Change (Mean)
31.8
Feedstock Transport
2.4
Feedstock Processing
-
Fuel Production
27.9
Co-Product Transport
0.6
Fuel Distribution
1.2
Fuel Use
0.9
Total (Mean)
77.2
Upstream (Mean)
46.6
Fuel Production
27.9
Downstream
2.8

Since we were only interested in the GHG emissions associated with corn production and delivery, we only took the "upstream" emissions results from Table 1 (i.e., 46.6 kgCO2e/mmBtu).
Converting the upstream result from Table 1 to GHG per pound of corn required the following steps:
 Convert the upstream emissions from kgCO2e per mmBtu of ethanol to kgCO2e per pound of corn based on the corn ethanol yields assumed for the March 2010 RFS2 lifecycle analysis.
 Account for the corn displaced by distillers grains and solubles (DGS).
The corn starch ethanol lifecycle analysis for the March 2010 RFS2 rule assumed corn starch ethanol yield of 2.71 gallons per bushel, which converts to 0.0037 mmBtu of ethanol per pound of corn. Based on a simple conversion, we obtained the result: 0.17 kgCO2e per pound of corn. However, this underestimates the GHG emissions per pound of corn used as livestock feed because corn used for ethanol results in ethanol and DGS co-product that in turn displaces the amount of corn needed for animal feed.
The analysis for the March 2010 RFS2 rule assumed DGS yield of 0.30 pounds per pound of corn used as ethanol feedstock (on dry basis). The models also included DDGS displacement rates for corn. The March 2010 RFS2 analysis assumed that all of this DGS was fed to livestock, and displaced corn at different rates for different livestock.
Two agricultural models were used for the March 2010 RFS2 analysis: FASOM and FAPRI (see the March 2010 RFS2 preamble and RIA for more information). The FAPRI results show that approximately 75% of DGS was fed to cows. The FASOM results included the total amount of DGS used for feed, but not the breakdown by animal type. An Iowa State University study reported that in the U.S. 86% of DGS was consumed by cows in 2016/17. Weighting DGS consumption more heavily towards cows results in a greater DGS corn displacement estimate, and a higher GHG per pound of corn emissions factor. For this distillers sorghum oil analysis, we have used the Iowa State data as a conservative estimate. Based on this weighting, each pound of DGS used displaced 0.36 pounds of corn (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Corn Use and Displacement in the March 2010 RFS2 Corn Starch Ethanol Lifecycle Analysis

Thus, the intermediate result of 0.17 kgCO2e per lb of corn (see above), became 0.17 kgCO2e per 0.64 lbs of corn, which converts to 0.266 kgCO2e per lb of corn.
This corn emissions factor (0.266 kgCO2e/lb) was used in our distillers sorghum oil lifecycle analysis to calculate the GHG emissions associated with each pound of corn needed to substitute for distillers sorghum oil used for biofuel instead of livestock feed.
The calculations explained above in this section are included in the lifecycle analysis spreadsheet described in the first section of this memorandum.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12092-12093]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 308-000]

PacifiCorp Energy; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project
Operation

    On February 28, 2014, PacifiCorp Energy, licensee for the Wallowa
Falls Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's
regulations thereunder. The Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project is
located on the East and West Forks of the Wallowa River and Royal
Purple Creek in Wallowa County, Oregon.
    The license for Project No. 308 was issued for a period ending
February 28, 2016. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 308 is issued to
the licensee for a period effective March 1, 2016 through February 28,
2017 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other
disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new
license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
February 28, 2017, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission,

unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the licensee, PacifiCorp Energy, is authorized to
continue operation of the Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project, until
such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent
license.

    Dated: March 2, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05099 Filed 3-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                            	OMB No. 2060-0336,
   	Approval Expires 05/31/2019

 Federal Operating Permit Program (40 CFR Part 71)
 INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN AND COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION (I-COMP)

SECTION A - COMPLIANCE STATUS AND COMPLIANCE PLAN
   Complete this section for each unique combination of applicable requirements and emissions units at the facility. List all compliance methods (monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting) you used to determine compliance with the applicable requirement described above.  Indicate your compliance status at this time for this requirement and compliance methods and check "YES" or "NO" to the follow-up question.

   Emission Unit ID(s): EU-1  -  New 4SLB >500 HP at a Major Source of HAPs

   Applicable Requirement (Describe and Cite)

   40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ  -  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

   Emission Limitations:

   §63.6600(b)
   Table 2a  -  point 2
   a. Reduce CO emissions by 93 percent or more; or
   b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2

   General Requirements:

   §63.6595(b)(2)
   Any stationary RICE for which construction or reconstruction is commenced before your area source becomes a major source of HAP must be in compliance with the provisions of this subpart that are applicable to RICE located at major sources within 3 years after your area source becomes a major source of HAP.

   §63.6605
   (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements in this subpart that apply to you at all times.
   (b) At all times you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

   Compliance Requirements:

   §63.6600(b)
   Table 2b point 1:
   a. maintain your catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water at 100 percent load plus or minus 10 percent from the pressure drop across the catalyst that was measured during the initial performance test; and
   b. maintain the temperature of your stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 450 °F and less than or equal to 1350 °F.

   §63.6610
   If you own or operate a stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions you are subject to the requirements of this section.
   (a) You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial compliance demonstrations in Table 4 to this subpart that apply to you within 180 days after the compliance date that is specified for your stationary RICE in § 63.6595 and according to the provisions in § 63.7(a)(2).

   §63.6615
   Table 3: Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.

   §63.6620
   Table 4: conduct testing per Points 1 or 3

   §63.6625
   (b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. For an affected source that is complying with the emission limitations and operating limitations on March 9, 2011, the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section are applicable September 6, 2011.
   (1) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the monitoring system design, data collection, and the quality assurance and quality control elements outlined in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section and in § 63.8(d). As specified in § 63.8(f)(4), you may request approval of monitoring system quality assurance and quality control procedures alternative to those specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan.
   (i) The performance criteria and design specifications for the monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, detector signal analyzer, and data acquisition and calculations;
   (ii)Sampling interface (e.g., thermocouple) location such that the monitoring system will provide representative measurements;
   (iii)Equipment performance evaluations, system accuracy audits, or other audit procedures;
   (iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with provisions in § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3); and
   (v) Ongoing reporting and recordkeeping procedures in accordance with provisions in § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
   (2) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS in continuous operation according to the procedures in your site-specific monitoring plan.
   (3) The CPMS must collect data at least once every 15 minutes (see also § 63.6635).
   (4) For a CPMS for measuring temperature range, the temperature sensor must have a minimum tolerance of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) or 1 percent of the measurement range, whichever is larger.
   (5) You must conduct the CPMS equipment performance evaluation, system accuracy audits, or other audit procedures specified in your site-specific monitoring plan at least annually.
   (6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.

   §63.6630
   (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation, operating limitation, and other requirement that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart.
   (b) During the initial performance test, you must establish each operating limitation in Tables 1b and 2b of this subpart that applies to you.
   (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6645.

   Table 5 Point 9
   i. The average formaldehyde concentration, corrected to 15 percent O2, dry basis, from the three test runs is less than or equal to the formaldehyde emission limitation; and
   ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously monitor catalyst inlet temperature according to the requirements in § 63.6625(b); and
   iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature during the initial performance test.

   §63.6635
   (a) If you must comply with emission and operating limitations, you must monitor and collect data according to this section.
   (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, required performance evaluations, and required quality assurance or control activities, you must monitor continuously at all times that the stationary RICE is operating. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
   (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels. You must, however, use all the valid data collected during all other periods.

   §63.6640
   (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation, operating limitation, and other requirements in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according to methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
   (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you. These instances are deviations from the emission and operating limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.6650. If you change your catalyst, you must reestablish the values of the operating parameters measured during the initial performance test. When you reestablish the values of your operating parameters, you must also conduct a performance test to demonstrate that you are meeting the required emission limitation applicable to your stationary RICE.
   (e) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart that apply to you. If you own or operate a new or reconstructed stationary RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions (except new or reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than or equal to 250 and less than or equal to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, or any of the following RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart: An existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing emergency stationary RICE, an existing limited use stationary RICE, or an existing stationary RICE which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis. If you own or operate any of the following RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart, except for the initial notification requirements: a new or reconstructed stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, a new or reconstructed emergency stationary RICE, or a new or reconstructed limited use stationary RICE.

   Notification Requirements:

   §63.6645
   (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified

   Reporting Requirements:
   §63.6650
   (a) You must submit each report in Table 7 of this subpart that applies to you.

   Recordkeeping Requirements:
   §63.6655
   (a) If you must comply with the emission and operating limitations, you must keep the records described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1) through (b)(3) and (c) of this section.
   (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirement in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
   (2) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and monitoring equipment.
   (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
   (4) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air pollution control and monitoring equipment.
   (5) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.6605(b), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation.
   (b) For each CEMS or CPMS, you must keep the records listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
   (1) Records described in § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
   (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan as required in § 63.8(d)(3).
   (3) Requests for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for CEMS or CPMS as required in § 63.8(f)(6)(i), if applicable.
   (d) You must keep the records required in Table 6 of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission or operating limitation that applies to you.

   §63.6660
   (c) You must keep each record readily accessible in hard copy or electronic form for at least 5 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1).

   Compliance Methods for the Above (Description and Citation):

   Targa will install an oxidation catalyst to control the emissions of either CO or formaldehyde

   Compliance Status:

   _X_ In Compliance:  Will you continue to comply up to permit issuance?  _X__ Yes    ____No

   ___ Not In Compliance: Will you be in compliance at permit issuance?  ___Yes    ___No

   ___ Future-Effective Requirement:  Do you expect to meet this on a timely basis? ____Yes  ____No

 SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

   Complete this section if you answered "NO" to any of the questions in section A.  Also, complete this section if required to submit a schedule of compliance by an applicable requirement. Please attach copies of any judicial consent decrees or administrative orders for this requirement.

   Unit(s)____________________ Requirement_____________________________________________

   Reason for Noncompliance.   Briefly explain reason for noncompliance at time of permit issuance or that future-effective requirement will not be met on a timely basis:

   Narrative Description of how Source Compliance Will be Achieved.   Briefly explain your plan for achieving compliance:

   Schedule of Compliance.   Provide a schedule of remedial measures, including an enforceable sequence of actions with milestones, leading to compliance, including a date for final compliance.

   	Remedial Measure or Action

                              Date to be Achieved

C.  SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROGRESS REPORTS

   Only complete this section if you are required to submit one or more schedules of compliance in section B or if an applicable requirement requires submittal of a progress report.  If a schedule of compliance is required, your progress report should start within 6 months of application submittal and subsequently, no less than every six months.  One progress report may include information on multiple schedules of compliance.

   Contents of Progress Report (describe):

   First Report____/____/___  Frequency of Submittal_______________

   Contents of Progress Report (describe):

   First Report____/____/___  Frequency of Submittal_______________

   D.  SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATIONS

   This section must be completed once by every source.  Indicate when you would prefer to submit compliance certifications during the term of your permit (at least once per year).

   Frequency of submittal______________________ Beginning____/____/____

 COMPLIANCE WITH ENHANCED MONITORING & COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

   This section must be completed once by every source.  To certify compliance with these, you must be able to certify compliance for every applicable requirement related to monitoring and compliance certification at every unit.

   Enhanced Monitoring Requirements:           ____ In Compliance      ____ Not In Compliance

   Compliance Certification Requirements:      ____ In Compliance      ____ Not In Compliance

                             INSTRUCTIONS FOR I-COMP
               INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN AND COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION

   Section A (Compliance Status and Compliance Plan)

   Description of Applicable Requirement:  Complete Section A for each unique combination of applicable requirements (emission limitations, standards or other similar requirements of federal rules, SIP, TIP, FIP, or federally-enforceable permits) that apply to particular emissions units. You will likely have to complete this section numerous times to include all requirements at all emission units.

   The emissions unit ID(s) should be the ones defined in section I of form GIS.  If the requirement, including compliance method, applies in the same way to multiple emission units, you may list multiple units for a particular requirement.

   The descriptions here should be detailed to the individual requirement level, rather than the standard level (if a MACT applies to you, describe each requirement of the MACT, rather than just a citation to the MACT as a whole). If the requirement imposes a particular numerical limit or range, include that in your description.

   Citations to the requirements should unambiguously identify the requirement to the lowest level necessary.

   Compliance Methods:  List all compliance methods (monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting) you used to determine compliance with the applicable requirement described above.  Such methods may be required by the applicable requirements or performed for other reasons.  List all compliance methods required by applicable requirements, whether you used them to determine compliance or not.

   To describe monitoring, indicate the monitoring device, the equipment, process, or pollutant monitored, averaging time, frequency, and a citation or cross-reference to the requirement.  To describe recordkeeping, describe the records kept, the frequency of collection, and include a citation or cross-reference to the requirement.  Please indicate whether monitoring data, results, or other records kept for compliance purposes may be kept on-site rather than reported.  To describe reporting requirements, describe what is reported, when it is reported, and cite or cross-reference the requirement.

   The citation or cross-reference here must unambiguously identify the requirement to the lowest level necessary.

   Note that Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) under part 64 is also an applicable requirement that may impose compliance methods for title V sources and require the submittal of a CAM plan with this application.  Also note that periodic monitoring (which may be monitoring or recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) under part 71 may be required in certain limited circumstances: when there is no monitoring required, monitoring is required but there is no frequency specified, or only a one-time test is required.  You may propose periodic monitoring in your application, but the permitting authority will make the final decision. If you wish to propose periodic monitoring, please do so in an attachment that clearly identifies the requirements, the units they apply to, and what you propose for periodic monitoring.

   Compliance Status:  For each requirement and associated compliance methods described above, indicate whether you are in compliance, not in compliance, or it is a future-effective requirement (only check one). This is with respect to your compliance status at the time of application submittal.  You should consider all available information or knowledge that you have when evaluating your compliance status, including reference test methods and other compliance requirements that are required directly by a statute, regulation, or permit and "credible evidence" (e.g., non-reference test methods and other information "readily available" to you and already being utilized by you).  For each compliance status indication, you must answer "YES" or "NO" as to your expectations for continuing (or future) compliance.  If you answer "NO" to any of these questions, you will have to complete the schedule of compliance section (section B).

   Section B (Schedule of Compliance)

   Complete this section if you answered "NO" to any of the questions in section A.  Regardless of how you answered the questions in section A, complete this section if required to have a schedule of compliance by an applicable requirement, or if a judicial consent decree or administrative order includes a schedule of compliance.

   Identify the applicable requirement using the same information you used in section A.  Provide a brief explanation of the reason for noncompliance (either now or in the future). [e.g., "do not have control device required as BACT."]  Next, provide a brief description of what the schedule of compliance is trying to achieve.  Then in the table provided, include a detailed schedule of remedial measures, including an enforceable sequence of actions with milestones, leading to compliance with the applicable requirement.  This schedule shall resemble and be at least as stringent as that contained in any judicial consent decree or administrative order to which the source is subject.  Any such schedule of compliance must be supplemental to, and not sanction noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it is based.  For each remedial measure, provide the date by which the action will be completed.  This schedule or one approved by the permitting authority will be included in the permit.

   Lastly, attach a copy of any judicial consent decrees or administrative orders for which you are providing a schedule of compliance.

   Section C (Schedule for Submission of Progress Reports)

   If you must submit one or more schedules of compliance (specified in section B), or if an applicable requirement requires submittal of a progress report, complete this section.  Progress reports describe your progress in meeting the milestone dates for the remedial measures required by the schedule of compliance.  Progress reports must be submitted at least every 6 months, but specific applicable requirements may require them more frequently.  One progress report may include information on one or more schedules of compliance.  Describe the contents of the progress report, including the date that your facility will begin submitting them and the frequency they will be submitted.

   Section D (Schedule for Submission of Compliance Certifications)

   All applicants must complete this section.  Compliance certifications must be submitted at least every year unless the applicable requirement or EPA requires them more frequently.  Provide the date when the first compliance certification will be sent.

   Section E (Compliance Status for Enhanced Monitoring and Compliance Certification)

   All applicants must complete this section.  The completion of this section does not satisfy the requirement for the responsible official to submit a certification of truth, accuracy, and completeness (instead, this is met by completing form CTAC and submitting it with the other forms you send to EPA).

   To certify compliance with "Enhanced Monitoring," you must be in compliance at all emission units with CAM and "Periodic Monitoring" [required by 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B)], if they apply.  "Compliance Certification Requirements" include requirements for compliance certification in title V applications and permits, and possibly through applicable requirements (e.g., certain MACT standards).  If you have fully completed sections A - E of this form, you will be in compliance with the compliance certification requirement for applications.  If you do not have a title V permit at this time, you can assume you are in compliance with the compliance certification requirements for permits and with periodic monitoring requirements.  If you indicate you are "not in compliance" with either of these requirements, attach an explanation.

                                       END


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64758-64759]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD14-11-000]

Proposed Agency Information Collection

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collection in Docket No. RD14-11-000 to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission issued a Notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 46781, 8/
11/2014) requesting public comments. FERC received no comments in
response to that notice and has made this notation in its submission to
OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by December 1,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, regarding FERC-725A (OMB Control
Number 1902-0244) and FERC-725X (OMB Control Number TBD), should be
sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. RD14-11-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed information collection changes
in Docket No. RD14-11-000 relate to the proposed Reliability Standards
VAR-001-4 (Voltage and Reactive Control) and VAR-002-3 (Generator
Operation for Maintaining Network Voltage Schedules), developed by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and submitted
to the Commission for approval. The Commission received NERC's petition
to approve the proposed Reliability Standards on June 9, 2014.
    NERC summarizes the VAR group of standards as follows:

    The Voltage and Reactive (``VAR'') group of Reliability
Standards, which consists of two continent-wide Reliability
Standards, VAR-001-3 and VAR-002-2b, is designed to maintain voltage
stability on the Bulk-Power System, protect transmission,
generation, distribution, and customer equipment, and support the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NERC Petition at 3.

    In its petition, NERC also summarizes the proposed Reliability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards' applicability and requirements:

    In general, proposed Reliability Standard VAR-001-4 sets forth
the requirements applicable to Transmission Operators for
scheduling, monitoring, and controlling Reactive Power resources in
the Real-time Operations, Same-day Operations, and Operational
Planning time horizons to regulate voltage and Reactive Power flows
for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Proposed
Reliability Standard VAR-002-3 sets forth the requirements
applicable to Generator Operators and Generator Owners for providing
the necessary reactive support and voltage control necessary to
maintain reliable operations. Generators are the largest and most
reliable Reactive Power resource and play an integral role in
maintaining voltage stability on the Bulk-Power System.
Collectively, the proposed Reliability Standards are designed to
prevent voltage instability and voltage collapse on the Bulk-Power
System.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. at 4.

    Finally, NERC also states that the proposed Reliability Standards
improve reliability, clarify requirement language and eliminate
redundant or unnecessary requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 15.

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

    Burden Statement: Commission staff analyzed the proposed and
currently enforced standards and has concluded that while information
collection requirements have been deleted, added, and/or changed, the
overall paperwork burden and applicable respondent universe remains
unchanged. To improve accounting of the burden, the Commission
recognizes that in the transition from VAR-001-3 to VAR-001-4
(requirement R1) there is a decrease in documentation related to
policies and procedures. However, the transmission operators are now
required to have documentation related to system voltage and reactive
power schedules as well as documentation related to coordination with
adjacent transmission operators and applicable reliability
coordinators. The Commission estimates that this transition leads to a
decrease of 160 hours as well as an increase of 160 hours, for a net
change of zero. The Commission seeks comment on whether this estimate
is accurate.
    For the transition from VAR-002-2b to VAR-002-3, the Commission
estimates that changes in requirement R1 lead to an increase of 80
hours for recordkeeping and changes in requirement R2 lead to an
increase in 120 hours for documentation. However, the Commission
estimates a decrease of the same magnitude (200 hours) related to the
changes in requirements R3 and R4. The remaining information collection
requirements in the two standards remain essentially unchanged.
    Based on the above estimates, the Commission intends to submit a
total reduction of 204,240 hours from FERC-725A and a total increase of
204,240 hours into FERC-725X, a new collection FERC is using to account
for burden related to VAR reliability standards. The following table
summarizes the burden changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ TOP = Transmission Operator, GOP = Generator Operator.
    \5\ The estimate for cost per hour (rounded to the nearest
dollar) is derived as follows:
     $61/hour, the average salary plus benefits
(representing 30.1% of the total compensation) per engineer (from
Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm. and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of       Number of        Average
             Changes                respondents    responses per   burden hours    Total annual    Total annual
                                        \4\         respondent     per response    burden hours      cost \5\
                                             (1)             (2)             (3)     (1)x(2)x(3)  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR-001-4 Requirement R1               184 (TOP)               1             160          29,440      $1,766,400
 Increase (FERC-725X)...........
VAR-001-4 Requirement R1               184 (TOP)               1            -160         -29,440      -1,766,400
 Decrease (FERC-725A)...........
VAR-002-3 Requirement R1               874 (GOP)               1              80          69,920       4,195,200
 Increase (FERC-725X)...........
VAR-002-3 Requirement R2               874 (GOP)               1             120         104,880       6,292,800
 Increase (FERC-725X)...........
VAR-002-3 Requirements R3 and R4       874 (GOP)               1            -200        -174,800     -10,488,000
 Decrease (FERC-725A)...........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 23, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25901 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 Attendees EPA CRP Meeting  20 Jan. 2010    25 People

Tom Lewandowski	adientcorp

Hans Hammer	Audi

Michael Schneider	BMW Group

Pankaj Mahajan	Chrysler

Juergen Wertenbach	Daimler

Mary Koban	Dupont

Tanner	Dupont

Margaret Sheppard	EPA

Yaidi V. Cancel	EPA

Steve Lepper	Ford

Curt Vincent 	GM

Fred Sciance	GM

Curt Vincent 	GM

Harry Eustice	GM

Chris Seaton	Honeywell

David P. Wilson	Honeywell

Ryan Fortier	Hyundai-Kia

Enrique.peral-antunez	Renault

James.Hebden	Toyota

Julie He	Toyota

T.Ikegami 	Toyota

Peter Nickles	VW

Bill Hill

	Sasa.Vulinovic

	Ward Atkinson


[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21062-21063]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53669; File No. SR-NASD-2006-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Technical Amendments to Rule 3080 (Disclosure
to Associated Persons When Signing Form U-4)

April 18, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 13, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. NASD filed the
proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial'' rule change under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which rendered the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASD proposes to amend NASD Rule 3080 (Disclosure to Associated
Persons When Signing Form U-4) to correct the reference to the name of
the Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration
or Transfer) and the location of the predispute arbitration clause in
the Form U4. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
NASD's Web site, http://www.nasd.com, at NASD's Office of the

Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASD Rule 3080 requires that members disclose to associated persons
certain information regarding the nature and process of arbitration
proceedings that the associated person agrees to be bound by upon
signing a Form U4. The references to the name of the Form and the
location of the predispute arbitration clause in the Form are not
correct due to prior amendments to the Form.\4\ Accordingly, the
proposed rule change will amend NASD Rule 3080 to eliminate the hyphen
in the name of the Form U4 and to indicate that the predispute
arbitration clause is in Item 5 of section 15A of the Form U4. The
effective date and the implementation date of the proposed rule change
will be the date of filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48161 (July 10,
2003), 68 FR 42444 (July 17, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-57) (which, among
other things, changed the name of the Form from ``U-4'' to ``U4'')
and 45531 (March 11, 2002), 67 FR 11735 (March 15, 2002) (SR-NASD-
2002-05) (which, among other things, relocated the predispute
arbitration clause to a new Section 15A of the Form U4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 15A of

the Act,\5\ in general, and section 15A(b)(6) \6\ of the Act, in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that amending the references in NASD
Rule 3080 to the name of the Form and the location of the predispute
arbitration clause in the Form will eliminate confusion as to these
points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    NASD has neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms,
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\7\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay period for ``non-controversial'' proposals and make the proposed
rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, because the
proposed rule change is intended to correct references and cross-
references in NASD 3080 which are no longer correct due to the
operation of prior rule changes. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with
the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-046. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NASD-2006-046 and should be submitted on or before May 15, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6076 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P