[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 27593]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10762]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9056-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed May 10, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through May 17, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210053, Draft, USA, CA, Training and Public Land Withdrawal
Extension, Fort Irwin, California, Comment Period Ends: 07/06/2021,
Contact: Muhammad Bari<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20210054, Draft, NMFS, MD, Draft Amendment 13 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan,
Comment Period Ends: 07/20/2021, Contact: Thomas A Warren<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20210055, Final, FAA, CA, Bob Hope ``Hollywood-Burbank''
Airport Replacement Passenger Terminal, Contact: Edvige B. Mbakoup 424-
405-7283. Under 49 U.S.C. 304a(b), FAA has issued a single document
that consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of
decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not
apply to this action.
EIS No. 20210056, Draft, Caltrans, FRA, CA, Coachella Valley-San
Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Tier 1/Program
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Comment
Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact: Amanda Ciampolillo<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 17, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-10762 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62350-62352]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24510]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0495; FRL-9917-82-Region-9]

Revisions of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Nevada; Clark
County; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of revisions to the Clark County Department of Air Quality
(Clark or DEQ) portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This action was proposed in the Federal Register on July 23, 2014, and
concerns seven Clark County permitting related rules submitted by
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Final approval of
these rules makes these rules federally enforceable and corrects
program deficiencies identified in previous EPA rulemaking.

DATES: These rules will be effective on November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0495 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action concerns seven Clark County
permitting related rules (referred to as Sections) submitted by Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP): Sections 0--Definitions,
12.0--Applicability, General Requirements and Transition Procedures,
12.1--Permit Requirements for Minor Sources, 12.2--Permit Requirements
for Major Sources in Attainment Areas, 12.3--Permit Requirements for
Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas, 12.4--Authority to Construct
Application and Permit Requirements for Part 70 Sources, and subsection
12.7.5 of Section 12.7--Emission Reduction Credits.
    Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On July 23, 2014 (79 FR 42752), EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the Clark portion of the Nevada SIP.

                                          Table 1--Submitted NSR Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section No.                             Section title                  Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................................  Definitions..........................         3/18/14          4/1/14
12.0.....................................  Applicability, General Requirements           3/18/14          4/1/14
                                            and Transition Procedures.
12.1.....................................  Permit Requirements for Minor Sources         3/18/14          4/1/14
12.2.....................................  Permit Requirements for Major Sources         3/18/14          4/1/14
                                            in Attainment Areas (Prevention of
                                            Significant Deterioration).
12.3.....................................  Permit Requirements for Major Sources         3/18/14          4/1/14
                                            in Nonattainment Areas.
12.4.....................................  Authority to Construct Application            3/18/14          4/1/14
                                            and Permit Requirements for Part 70
                                            Sources.
12.7 (Subsection 12.7.5).................  Emission Reduction Credits...........         5/18/10          4/1/14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
address deficiencies identified in a previous action (77 FR 64039,
October 18, 2012), and complied with the relevant CAA requirements. On
July 23, 2014, we simultaneously proposed to remove several outdated
regulations from the SIP as listed below.

                   Table 2--Rules Requested To Rescind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Section No.         Section title         Repealed        Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  Definitions..........         3/18/14         4/01/14
11...............  Ambient Air Quality           4/05/11         4/01/14
                    Standards.
24...............  Sampling and Testing--        3/16/10         4/01/14
                    Records and Reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reconsidered our proposed rescission of all of the
remaining defined terms in section 1 (``Definitions'') and are taking
final action to rescind all of them with the exception of certain
defined terms that are necessary to retain because they are relied upon
in certain Clark County rules in the existing SIP. The terms in section
1 for which we are deferring final rescission action at this time, and
the corresponding Clark County SIP rule that relies on the term, are as
follows: ``affected facility'' (SIP section 23), ``dust'' (SIP section
27), ``existing gasoline station'' (SIP section 52), ``fumes'' (SIP
section 27), ``mist'' (SIP section 1 definition of ``uncombined
water''), ``new gasoline station'' (SIP section 52), ``new source''
(SIP section 26), ``single source'' (SIP section 26), ``standard
conditions'' (SIP section 30), and ``uncombined water'' (SIP section
26).
    Our proposed action and the associated Technical Support Document
(TSD) contains more information on the

basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submitted rules
and rule rescissions.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules and rule
rescissions \1\ as revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, we are deferring final rescission action on
``affected facility'', ``dust'', ``existing gasoline station'',
``fumes'', ``mist'', ``new gasoline station'', ``new source'',
``single source'', ``standard conditions'', and ``uncombined
water''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements, in part, and does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 16, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. In Sec.  52.1470 in paragraph (c), Table 3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``Section 0,'' ``Section 12.0,'' ``Section
12.1,'' ``Section 12.2,'' ``Section 12.3,'' and ``Section 12.4'';
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Section 12.7: Subsection 12.7.5'' after the
entry for ``Section 12.4''; and
0
c. Removing the entries for ``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection
1.6'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.11'', ``Section 1
(``Definitions''): Subsection 1.12'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''):
Subsection 1.16'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.23'',
``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.28'', ``Section 1
(``Definitions''): Subsection 1.30'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''):
Subsection 1.40'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.41'',
``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.44'', ``Section 1
(``Definitions''): Subsection 1.60'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''):
Subsection 1.70'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.83'',
``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.84'', ``Section 1
(``Definitions''): Subsection 1.87'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''):
Subsection 1.91'', ``Section 1 (``Definitions''): Subsection 1.97'',
``Section 11'', and ``Section 24: Subsections 24.1-24.5.''
    The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 Table 3--EPA-Approved Clark County Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          County
         County citation             Title/Subject      effective    EPA approval date    Additional explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 0.......................  Definitions........       4/1/14  [Insert Federal      Amended by Clark County
                                                                     Register             Board of County
                                                                     citation], 10/17/    Commissioners on March
                                                                     14.                  18, 2014 through
                                                                                Ordinance No. 4189.
                                                                                Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 12.0....................  Applicability,            4/1/14  [Insert Federal      Amended by Clark County
                                   General                           Register             Board of County
                                   Requirements and                  citation], 10/17/    Commissioners on March
                                   Transition                        14.                  18, 2014 through
                                   Procedures.                                            Ordinance No. 4189.
                                                                                Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.
Section 12.1....................  Permit Requirements       4/1/14  [Insert Federal      Amended by Clark County
                                   for Minor Sources.                Register             Board of County
                                                                     citation], 10/17/    Commissioners on March
                                                                     14.                  18, 2014 through
                                                                                Ordinance No. 4189.
                                                                                Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.
Section 12.2....................  Permit Requirements       4/1/14  [Insert Federal      Amended by Clark County
                                   for Major Sources                 Register             Board of County
                                   in Attainment                     citation], 10/17/    Commissioners on March
                                   Areas (Prevention                 14.                  18, 2014 through
                                   of Significant                                         Ordinance No. 4189.
                                   Deterioration).                                        Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.
Section 12.3....................  Permit Requirements       4/1/14  [Insert Federal      Amended by Clark County
                                   for Major Sources                 Register             Board of County
                                   in Nonattainment                  citation], 10/17/    Commissioners on March
                                   Areas.                            14.                  18, 2014 through
                                                                                Ordinance No. 4189.
                                                                                Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.
Section 12.4....................  Authority to              4/1/14  [Insert Federal      Amended by Clark County
                                   Construct                         Register             Board of County
                                   Application and                   citation], 10/17/    Commissioners on March
                                   Permit                            14.                  18, 2014 through
                                   Requirements For                                       Ordinance No. 4189.
                                   Part 70 Sources.                                       Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.
Section 12.7: Subsection 12.7.5.  Emission Reduction        7/1/10  [Insert Federal      The heading for
                                   Credits.                          Register             subsection 12.7.5 is
                                                                     citation], 10/17/    ``Criteria for
                                                                     14.                  Granting ERCs.''
                                                                                Adopted by Clark
                                                                                County Board of County
                                                                                Commissioners on May
                                                                                18, 2010 through
                                                                                Ordinance No. 3864.
                                                                                Submitted by NDEP on 4/
                                                                                1/14.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24510 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24085-24086]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER16-1293-000]

White Oak Solar, LLC; 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
White Oak Solar, 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 May 9, 2016.
    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 Web site 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: April 19, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09480 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. Department 										55 Broadway
of Transportation										Cambridge, MA 02142

Research and
Innovative Technology
Administration

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

May 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:	Ex parte meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association
FROM:		Coralie Cooper, Volpe
TO:		Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079
This memorandum documents a meeting held on Wednesday, March 3, 2011 between the Engine Manufacturers Association/Truck Manufacturers Association (EMA/TMA), EPA, and DOT regarding the proposed fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for model years 2014-2018.  Specifically, EMA/TMA requested a meeting to discuss the tractor aerodynamic drag certification testing method proposed in the NPRM.   The attendees included:
EMA: Tim Blubaugh, David Kayes, Andrea Brown, Dan Kieffer, Don Keski-Hynilla, Rick Mihelic, Tony Greszler
EPA: Byron Bunker, Angela Cullen, Cleophas Jackson, Arvon Mitcham, Julian Davis
DOT: Coralie Cooper and Maurice Hicks
In the NPRM, the agencies that proposed tractor manufacturers use a two-part approach for determining the aerodynamic inputs to the GEM model.  The first part of the proposed evaluation approach uses a bin structure characterizing the expected aerodynamic performance of tractors based on definable vehicle attributes.  The first part would require manufacturers to assign each vehicle aerodynamic configuration to one of five aerodynamic bins.  For each bin, EPA and NHTSA have already defined a nominal Cd. The five bins are "classic," which incorporate few if any aerodynamic features; "conventional" which represent the average new tractor sold today; "SmartWay" which have added components to reduce drag;  "Advanced SmartWay," which have underbody airflow treatments, down exhaust, and other features, and "Advanced SmartWay II which incorporates technologies that are still in the prototype stage such as advanced gap closing.
The second proposed evaluation uses aerodynamic testing.  Manufacturers would be required to compare test results obtained using one of several approaches including coast down, computational fluid dynamics, and wind tunnel testing) with the bin Cds. If their test data showed a better or worse result than the Cd assignment, they would be required to certify to the correct bin.  In the proposal, the agencies stated that the SAE J2263 coastdown procedures would be the primary testing tool but said we were interested in working with the regulated industry to develop a primary test approach.  There are two sub-categories for class 7 trucks: 1) low/mid roof day cabs; and 2) high roof day cabs.  There are five sub-categories for class 8 trucks: 1) low/mid roof day cabs; 2) high roof day cabs; 3) low roof sleeper cabs; 4) mid roof sleeper cabs; and 5) high roof sleeper cabs.
EMA/TMA asked that, first, manufacturers be allowed to use the in-house test that is currently used for aerodynamic assessment, rather than being required to adopt a test method they don't currently use.  The reason for this request is that manufacturers have gathered data for truck models and have gained experience using their in-house testing methods.  They stated it would be costly  -  both financially and from the standpoint of time  -  to have to re-test vehicle models on a new aerodynamic test method.  They asked that manufacturers be allowed to correlate their in house test method results to a reference test.  This, they stated, would allow manufacturers to use all of the data they have previously collected on aerodynamic drag.   In response, the agencies said they are likely to adopt a reference test method that can be correlated to in-house methods.
EMA/TMA said there is value in selecting a reference test that establishes a wind average Cd, since a wind average Cd is more representative of real world conditions than a zero yaw Cd.  A wind average Cd estimates the impact of different angles of wind on the truck aerodynamics.  In contrast,  a zero yaw test only estimates the impact from head on wind.   EMA/TMA noted, however, that a wind average Cd can only be established through wind tunnel testing, which is expensive and can only be done in a limited number of locations in North America.   For these reasons, EMA/TMA asked that coast down testing be established as the reference test.   They stated that coast down testing is the most preferred method for a reference test since: 1) the test location is not restricted to one of a few locations but rather can be conducted at a number of locations at a relatively low cost; 2) it is a commonly used test and thus most of the data in the industry has been generated this way ; and 3) it is a relatively repeatable test if defined clearly.  With some methods -- modeling for example -- software program differences could result in variations in test results from use of different software programs.
EMA/TMA asked that if the coast down method is chosen for reference testing, several changes be made to reduce variability test to test, to reduce the cost to manufacturers for testing, and to remove unnecessary or redundant elements of the proposed method:
         o Request increase in allowable speed in aero reference method from 62 mph to 70 mph;
         o Request agencies define the rotational inertia of trailer tires for the reference test method;
         o Request removing yaw calculation that is part of the SAE 2263 procedure;
         o Request taking the anemometer off of front of truck for aero testing, and test at wind speeds of less than 5 mph;
         o Request to run trailer empty in reference test rather than loaded;
         o Request to use CdA rather than Cd;
         o Request limiting grade to 0.1% of road grade.
The agencies agreed to evaluate U.S. wind speed data, data on road grade, and coast down test data that will be available through an EPA testing program to determine whether the above changes are appropriate for the final rule. The agencies also agreed to clarify language in the final rule that describes inputs to the GEM model for aerodynamic drag.
In addition, EMA/TMA made the following two requests with regard to high roof trucks:
      1.   That a high roof day cab drag coefficient  be estimated by assuming the coefficient is 7.8% worse than a high roof sleeper cab.  Response: EPA agreed to evaluate CBI data on this issue.
      2.   Changes to GEM to account for the situations where real-world fuel saving measures, like downsizing an engine, may show up as fuel consumption increases in GEM due to marginally worse aerodynamics may be marginally worse .  Response: The agencies agreed to evaluate this issue.
With regard to mid and low roof trucks, EMA/TMA made the following two requests:
      1.   That low and mid roof sleepers be tested "bobtail," or without the trailer.
      2.   That aerodynamic " bins" established for high-roof trucks be carried over to mid- and low-roof trucks rather than requiring testing for all low and mid roof trucks.
For both of the two above items, EPA agreed to evaluate testing data that is being collected as part of an aerodynamic drag testing program and to make a decision on both of the above.
Last, with regard to selective enforcement audits, EMA/TMA asked that EPA use the test method the manufacturer uses in-house.  The agencies agreed to consider this request.


MEMORANDUM DATE: September 18,2002 SUBJECT: Addition to Performance I Test Data for Large Municipal ( MWCs) at MACT Compliance ( Year 2000 data)

FROM: Bradley Nelson Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

Walt Stevenson, EPAEmission Standards DivisiodCombus TO:

The attached table in this memorandum is a companion table to the memorandum,

" PerformanceJTest Data for Large Municipal Waste Combustors ( MWCs) at MACT Compliance ear 2000 Data)" Docket A 90 45; Item VIII  3 2. The attached table provides emission factors in units of pollutant emissions per electrical generation ( kg pollutantlMWe hr). These emission factors were developed using the emission factors from Table 3 in the companion memorandum and developing a conversion factor to convert from tons of municipal solid waste ( MSW) fired to nerated. The conversion factor was developed by totaling the MSW fired by all MWCs ( Mg per year) and dividing by the total electrical power generated ( m e  h r per year),

based on EIA data ( Year 2000). The conversion factor was calculated to be 1.5 tons MSWIMWe hr.

1 Table 3b. Emission Factors of Large MWC units after MACT Retrofits Section 129 Pollutants ( kg pollutant per ( kg pollutant per ' The emissions factors ( kg emissions per Mg waste fired) were developed by totaling the emissions of all167 units and dividing by the total waste combusted. ( see Docket A 90 45; Item VIII B 3).

' The emissions factors in the first coliumn ( kg emissions per Mg waste fired) were converted into units of ons per electrical generation by using a conversion factor of 1.5. The conversion factor is based on EIA data ( year 2000). The conversion factor was developed by totaling the waste fired by all MWCs ( Mg per year) and ding by the total electrical power generated ( W e  h r per year). ( The Tulsa MWC was excluded because of incomplete data).


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 7433]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-376-000.
    Applicants: Florida Public Utilities Company, Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation--Central Florida Gas Division.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of Florida Public Utilities Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230127-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-377-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2023 Section 4 Rate Case to be
effective 3/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230127-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-378-000.
    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: RP 2023-01-27 FL&U and EPC
Rate Adjustment to be effective 3/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230127-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1222-002.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance--
Implementation of Other Tariff Provisions to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230130-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-295-001.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: AXP Notice of Inservice in Docket
Nos. CP20-484, CP20-485 and RP23-295 to be effective 1/19/2023.
    Filed Date: 1/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230127-5188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 30, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02290 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22617-22618]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0002-N-5]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. These
ICRs describe the information collections and their expected burdens.
On January 14, 2022, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period
for public comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or May 16,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICRs
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On January 14, 2022, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICRs for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 87 FR 2482. FRA
received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(a); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983

(Aug. 29, 1995). OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated
community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate
time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR
44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). Therefore, respondents should submit their
respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure
having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICRs regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Locomotive Certification (Noise Compliance Regulations).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0527.
    Abstract: Under authority granted by the Noise Control Act of 1972,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established limits for
noise emissions related to rail carriers in 40 CFR part 201. Those
limits are enforced by FRA under 49 CFR part 210. In particular, the
information FRA collects under Sec.  210.27 is necessary to ensure
compliance with EPA noise standards for new locomotives. Although
railroads no longer need to display a certification badge or tag in the
locomotive cab, as was previously required by now-removed Sec.
210.27(d), the locomotives still need to be tested and certified to
comply with the noise emission standards, as required under Sec.
210.27(a)-(c).
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 4 locomotive manufacturers.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 4.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 2 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $155.

    Title: Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0560.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 222, FRA seeks to collect information
from railroads and public authorities in order to increase safety at
public highway-rail grade crossings nationwide by requiring that
locomotive horns be sounded when trains approach and pass through these
crossings or by ensuring that a safety level at least equivalent to
that provided by routine locomotive horn sounding exists for quiet zone
corridors in which such horn sounding is silenced. FRA reviews
applications by public authorities intending to establish new quiet
zones by implementing alternative safety measures and approves the
effectiveness rate assigned to them.
    FRA made several adjustments to its estimated paperwork burdens in
this ICR extension.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 754 railroads/645 public authorities.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 3,620.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 7,253 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$452,585.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-08141 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1255-1257]
[FR Doc No: 2016-259]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76824; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-118]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Credit Option Margin Pilot Program
Through January 17, 2017

January 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 23, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 12.3 by extending the Credit Option
Margin Pilot Program through January 17, 2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange'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, the Exchange 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. The Exchange 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
    On February 2, 2011, the Commission approved the Exchange's
proposal to establish a Credit Option Margin Pilot Program
(``Program'').\5\ The proposal became effective on a pilot basis to run
on a parallel track with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

(``FINRA'') Rule 4240 that similarly operates on an interim pilot
basis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63819 (February 2,
2011), 76 FR 6838 (February 8, 2011) order approving (SR-CBOE-2010-
106). To implement the Program, the Exchange amended Rule 12.3(l),
Margin Requirements, to make CBOE's margin requirements for Credit
Options consistent with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') Rule 4240, Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps.
CBOE's Credit Options (i.e., Credit Default Options and Credit
Default Basket Options) are analogous to credit default swaps.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59955 (May 22,
2009), 74 FR 25586 (May 28, 2009) (Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change; SR-FINRA-
2009-012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2012, the Exchange filed a rule change to, among
other things, decouple the Program with the FINRA program and to extend
the expiration date of the Program to January 17, 2013.\7\ The Program,
however, continues to be substantially similar to the provisions of the
FINRA program. Subsequently, the Exchange filed rule changes to extend
the program until January 17, 2014, January 16, 2015, and January 15,
2016, respectively.\8\ The Exchange believes that extending the
expiration date of the Program further will allow for further analysis
of the Program and a determination of how the Program should be
structured in the future. Thus, the Exchange is now currently proposing
to extend the duration of the Program for an additional year until
January 17, 2017. Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is in the
public interest to extend the expiration date of the Program because it
will continue to allow the Exchange to list Credit Options for trading.
As a result, the Exchange will remain competitive with the Over-the-
Counter market with respect to swaps and security-based swaps. In the
future, if the Exchange proposes an additional extension of the Credit
Option Margin Pilot Program or proposes to make the Program permanent,
then the Exchange will submit a filing proposing such amendments to the
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66163 (January 17,
2012), 77 FR 3318 (January 23, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-007).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68539 (December 27,
2012), 78 FR 138 (January 2, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2012-125), 71124
(December 18, 2013), 78 FR 77754 (December 24, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
123), and 73837 (December 15, 2014), 79 FR 75850 (December 19, 2014)
(SR-CBOE-2014-091).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will further the purposes of the Act because, consistent with the goals
of the Commission at the initial adoption of the program, the margin
requirements set forth by the proposed rule change will help to
stabilize the financial markets. In addition, the proposed rule change
is substantially similar to existing FINRA Rule 4240.

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Program, the proposed
rule change will allow for further analysis of the Program and a
determination of how the Program shall be structured in the future. In
doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote
regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing the Exchange requested that the Commission waive the
30-day operative delay period after which a proposed rule change under
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) becomes effective. Waiver of the 30-day operative
delay would allow the Exchange to extend the pilot program prior to its
expiration on January 15, 2016.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and public interest, as it
will allow for the least amount of market disruption as the pilot will
continue without interruption. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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 furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-118. This file

number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-CBOE-2015-118 and should be
submitted on or before February 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-259 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P