[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2760]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January
22, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings
    Consideration of amicus participation; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 15, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00926 Filed 1-15-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Demonstrating NOx Emission Reduction Benefits of State-Level Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policies
I. Background
EPA encourages air agencies to consider a multi-pollutant approach when assessing compliance options for ozone reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration SIPs. Multi-pollutant approaches include the use of energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) programs. EPA has provided resources to help air planners include these types of programs in a NAAQS State Implementation Plan (SIP) or Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP), and we have used these resources to conduct the analysis presented in this Technical Support Document (TSD).
For the purpose of demonstrating the emission reduction benefits of state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and energy efficiency policies, such as Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) and Public Benefit Funded (PBF) programs, EPA developed an illustrative analysis to determine the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission increases that would take place if these policies were not been in place from 2015 to 2020. The analysis encompasses counties in four states (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Texas) that were in nonattainment for the 2008 standard and are at risk of being designated in nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standard. An overview of the analysis can be found in Section V.E of the Preamble.
II. Incorporating EE/RE Programs in SIPs/TIPs
EPA has provided several resources to help state air planners include EE and RE in a SIP, including the "Roadmap for Incorporating EE/RE Programs and Policies in NAAQS SIPs/TIPs," which provides four pathways for incorporating EE/RE policies and programs. The methodology that EPA describes in this TSD is consistent with one of those pathways, the baseline emissions projection pathway, which is.
Projecting future emissions from the electric power sector normally requires an electricity demand forecast (a baseline forecast) that is used as a basis for predicting how generation requirements will change over time. There are a variety of demand forecasts available, including the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). It is important to understand the assumptions made in a forecast, including which EE/RE programs have already been incorporated.
In general, EPA's suggested approach to estimating the electricity effects of EE/RE policies is described in six steps:  Step 1: Choose a baseline forecast for electricity demand projections. Step 2: Document EE/RE policies already included in baseline electricity demand projections. Step 3: Identify "on-the-books" EE/RE policies not included in AEO or the chosen baseline electricity demand forecast. Step 4: Estimate the incremental electricity savings of the "on-the-books" EE/RE policies not included in the chosen baseline electricity demand forecast. Step 5: Incorporate the incremental electricity impacts of EE/RE policies and lower projected electricity demand in the model. Step 6: Project the change in power sector emissions attributable to the incremental effects of "on-the-books" EE/RE policies for future attainment year(s).  Again, these steps, along with additional information, are detailed in the U.S. EPA's "Roadmap for Incorporating EE/RE Policies and Programs in SIPs/TIPs."
III. Overview of Illustrative Analysis
To conduct this illustrative analysis of the NOx impacts of EE and RE policies, EPA first generated a "business-as-usual" base case reflecting projected changes in electricity demand and the expected impacts of "on-the-books" energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Texas in 2020. EPA then considered a set of counterfactual policy cases in which existing EE and/or RE policies in these states were not in place -- cases in which, compared to the base case, electricity demand was higher and/or renewable electricity generation was lower due to the removal of EE/RE polices. Specifically, EPA tested three counterfactual policy cases: removal of EE policies; removal of RE policies; and removal of EE and RE policies. The changes in electricity demand and RE generation in these cases are expected to be offset by increased fossil-fired generation; therefore, EPA used its AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) to compare average NOx emissions between the base case and these policy cases on the ten highest temperature days. EPA found higher levels of NOx emissions in each policy case examined.
Table 1 summarizes the state policies used in this analysis. For the energy efficiency portion of the analysis, EE policy targets or program funding levels were used to derive energy savings in 2020, which were then translated into percent changes in the amount of energy generated by fossil sources. For the renewable energy portion of this analysis, renewable generation requirements phrased as a percentage of electricity sales were used to find the amount of electricity (in GWh) expected to be generated by wind- and solar-powered facilities in order to satisfy these requirements in each state in 2020. This amount of electricity was then converted to an equivalent capacity (in MW) of wind and solar facilities.
The methodology used by EPA to determine the EE savings and RE generation under these scenarios is described in sections IV through VIII below. Appendix 1 shows EPA's calculations for this analysis, and Appendix 2 contains individual AVERT runs for base and policy cases in each applicable AVERT region.
Only the incremental electricity savings of "on-the-books" EE/RE policies from a baseline year to a future year would be used for SIP credit. In developing SIPs to address ozone planning obligations, a common exercise is to evaluate emissions changes between a base year and a future year, such as the year by which the air quality standard must be met. The period of our analysis of EE/RE policies is 2015 to 2020, meaning that we examined the emissions impact of the incremental EE/RE requirements that will be in effect in 2020 as compared to the requirements in 2015. In other words, our analysis tests the emissions reductions impacts that are expected to be realized in years 2016 through 2020 due to the implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in these years.
We used this timeframe to facilitate the inputs available for the AVERT modeling run (i.e., 2015 is the most recent data year available at the time of this writing), and because it is reasonably contemporaneous to the SIP planning timeframe of a moderate nonattainment area under the 2015 ozone standard, which as described in the Preamble, is expected to run from a base year of 2017 to an attainment year of 2023. To illustrate the broader impacts these policies have on emissions, EPA also illustrates the full benefits (i.e., since the policies' initial implementation) of RE policies as well.
Table 1. Overview of EE/RE Policies Analyzed
State
EERS, EE Goal, or EE Program Funding
RE Requirement or RPS
AVERT Region(s)
CT
Requirement to procure all cost-effective energy efficiency resources, which equates to about 1.7% of annual retail sales savings based on approved CT DEEP budgets in IRP
27% of retail load by 2020
Northeast
NJ
$265 Million in annual funding for EE
19% of retail sales by 2020
Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
NY
600 trillion Btu increase in statewide energy efficiency by 2030
50% of retail load by 2030
Northeast
TX
Energy savings calculated using a capacity factor of 20%, and reductions in annual growth in residential and commercial demand of 20% in 2010 and 2011, 25% in 2012, and 30% in 2013 and thereafter.
Additional 10,000 MW of wind between 2015 and  2020
Texas
a. Study Area and Period

This analysis was conducted for a subset of counties in four states -- Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Texas -- that were in nonattainment for the 2008 standard and are also at risk of being designated in nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standard. These counties are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Counties Included in Study Area

Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX
2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area
 Collin County, TX
 Dallas County, TX
 Denton County, TX
 Ellis County, TX
 Johnson County, TX
 Kaufman County, TX
 Parker County, TX
 Rockwall County, TX
 Tarrant County, TX
 Wise County, TX
 Fairfield County, CT
 Middlesex County, CT
 New Haven County, CT
 Bergen County, NJ
 Essex County, NJ
 Hudson County, NJ
 Hunterdon County, NJ
 Middlesex County, NJ
 Monmouth County, NJ
 Morris County, NJ
 Passaic County, NJ
 Somerset County, NJ
 Sussex County, NJ
 Union County, NJ
 Warren County, NJ
 Bronx County, NY
 Kings County, NY
 Nassau County, NY
 New York County, NY
 Queens County, NY
 Richmond County, NY
 Rockland County, NY
 Suffolk County, NY
 Westchester County, NY

In conducting its analysis, EPA analyzed the impacts of noted EE and RE policies on average NOX emissions in these at-risk counties on the 2015 top ten high temperature days. EPA grouped these counties into two nonattainment areas (Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX and New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT) and analyzed the impact of policy changes on NOx emissions in each area.
b. Use of AVERT
EPA used its AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) to conduct this analysis. AVERT is a tool designed to estimate changes in emissions resulting from changes in the amount of electric demand that must be met by fossil-fired generation. In order to analyze the impacts of a given RE or EE measure on emissions, users select an AVERT region for analysis and then input a regional data file (RDF), which is based on historical generation from a recent year and is used in AVERT's main module. In addition, users input a desired change in renewable energy or energy efficiency that will effect a change in the amount of generation that must be supplied by fossil-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Changes in renewable energy are input as additions or subtractions of wind- or solar-powered capacity. Changes in energy efficiency are input as a set amount of energy or percent changes in demand, divided equally throughout every hour of the year, or as percentage change to a percentage of hours. Changes in demand in general can also be simulated using these inputs.
AVERT divides the contiguous 48 states of the United States into ten regions, as shown in Figure 1, and models these regions as independent in terms of their demand for and supply of electricity. AVERT assumes that changes in demand within a region are responded to only by EGUs within that region, implying that any transmission between regions is constant over time and regardless of the implementation of EE, RE, or other changes in demand.
The boundaries of the AVERT regions are based on NERC regions of the contiguous United States electrical grid. However, electrical boundaries do not follow state boundaries.  Only 26 states lie entirely within one AVERT region. The remaining 22 states are split across AVERT boundaries.  For states covered by multiple regions, EPA recommends conducting analyses for all applicable AVERT regions, using an apportionment based on how much of that state's fossil-fired generation is found in each relevant AVERT region. Table 3 below summarizes the AVERT regions into which the states in this analysis fall and the percentage of each state's fossil-fired electric generation found those AVERT regions.

Figure 1. Map of AVERT Regions

Table 3. State Apportionment in AVERT Regions, Based on Generation from 2010-2013

                                 AVERT Regions
                                     State
                                   Northeast
                                 Great Lakes/
                                 Mid Atlantic
                                   Southeast
                                 Lower Midwest
                                     Texas
                                      TX
                                       -
                                       -
                                      6%
                                      12%
                                      82%
                                      CT
                                     100%
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      NY
                                     100%
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      NJ
                                      23%
                                      77%
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
IV. Base Case Methodology
Using an appropriate base case is key to obtaining meaningful results in a counterfactual analysis and estimating the emissions impacts of EE/RE policies. Because this analysis uses AVERT RDFs based on 2015 generation, generating a "business-as-usual" base case requires projecting fossil-fired EGU generation in 2020 resulting from expected changes in demand and the results of existing policies. As such, the base case factors in changes that are expected to occur between 2015 and 2020 given "on-the-books" RPS, EERS, and PBF policies described in Table 1 above. The counterfactual policy cases examine the impacts of EE and RE programs; therefore, the definition of the base case must include both a projection of future demand and a projection of how much of that demand will be met by fossil-fired resources.
Because EPA's analysis uses AVERT, the base case was developed on a regional basis using the regions defined in AVERT. As discussed above, AVERT treats the contiguous United States as a set of independent regions. Importantly, in this framework, changes in demand for electricity within a given region are satisfied by supply resources located only within that AVERT region. However, within an AVERT region, demand at any location can be satisfied by supply resources from throughout the AVERT region. This has important implications for setting an appropriate base case in AVERT: because generators from any state within a region are expected to respond to changes in demand in any state within that region, the base case must consistently represent expected changes for the entire AVERT region. Because we are looking at Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Texas, EPA's base case includes a projection of future demand and fossil-fired generation for three AVERT regions: the Northeast (NE) region, the Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic (EMW) region, and the Texas (TX) region.
a. Calculating the Base Case
To formulate its 2020 base case, EPA projected changes in demand for fossil-fired electricity generation in light of the savings in overall demand expected from "on-the-books" EE and the reduction in demand for fossil energy specifically due to RE policies. This projection generated inputs for AVERT reflecting demand for electricity and installed RE generation capacity in 2020, relative to 2015.
First, EPA projected total demand for electricity in 2020. EPA's electricity demand projection was based on the AEO 2013 reference case, which includes some, but not all, EE policy and program savings. It was therefore necessary to adjust AEO values to include the entire expected outcome of EE policies. EPA previously developed a revised demand projection, which is taken as an input for this analysis; EPA provides greater detail on its methodology in the "Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans."
Expected changes in demand were calculated by summing expected demand for every state in a given region in both 2015 and 2020 (in accordance with the regional apportionment scheme described in the AVERT manual and Table 3 above). Demand for a given region in 2015 is denoted Do while future demand in 2020 for that region in the base case (with EE policies in place) is denoted Df. The projected change in demand in percentage terms (df) is simply the expected difference in demand between 2020 and 2015 (Df  -  Do) divided by Do:
      df = (Df  -  Do) / Do
Second, EPA needed to translate the expected change in demand from 2015 to 2020 into an expected change in fossil-fired generation. EPA made the simplifying assumption that the percentage of demand that is met by fossil-fired resources will stay constant on the regional scale apart from the impact of incremental renewable energy as required by RPS policies in the states of interest. In other words, if fossil-fired generation met 90% of demand in a given region in 2015, EPA assumed that fossil-fired generation will also meet 90% of demand in that region in 2020 (less the additional renewable energy  expected to be added due to RPS policies, which is accounted for separately in the base case as discussed below). The validity of this assumption will vary for different regions. Thus, EPA assumed that the percentage change in demand (df) would also be the percentage change in fossil generation. As such, baseline fossil-fired generation in 2020 (Ff) can be estimated as:
	Ff = Fo x (1+df)
where Fo represents fossil-fired generation in 2015, as found in the 2015 AVERT regional data files. EPA further assumed that the percentage change in fossil generation would be spread evenly throughout the year. In other words, it was assumed that the amount of fossil generation in every hour would change by df percent.
Third, EPA needed to determine the incremental amount of renewable energy generation capacity that would be installed between 2015 and 2020 to satisfy the requirements of each state's "on-the-books" RE policies. EPA's approach to calculating the amount of RE required in the base case (as well as in cases testing the impact of the incremental and full impact of states' RPS policies) is described in Section VI.
Based on these calculations, the expected change in fossil demand and additional RE capacity input into AVERT for each region for this base case is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Effects of Incremental EE/RE Policies in Base Case

                                   Northeast
                                     (NE)
                           Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic
                                     (EMW)
                                    Texas
                                     (TX)
EE Policy
RE Policy
                                   % growth
                                   Wind (MW)
                                      PV
                                     (MW)
                                   % growth
                                     Wind
                                     (MW)
                                      PV
                                     (MW)
                                   % growth
                                     Wind
                                     (MW)
                                      PV
                                     (MW)
Incremental effects of noted EE policies in 2015-2020 (df)

Incremental effects of noted RE policies in 2015-2020 (Rinc)

                                    -4.72%
                                     3,757
                                      764
                                     0.64%
                                      5
                                    1,840
                                     4.55%
                                    10,000
                                       0
V. Effect of EE Goals, EE Program Funding and EERS Policies
To estimate the potential emissions that would be expected to be emitted if not for states' "on-the-books" EE policies, EPA developed a counterfactual policy case that removes current state-level EE policies and programs in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. EPA estimated cumulative incremental impacts (in megawatt-hours) from 2015 to 2020 of EE policies listed in Table 1. It was assumed that the entirety of increased demand due to the absence of EE policies would be met by increased generation from fossil-fired EGUs. An illustration of the policy and base cases is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Approach to Removal of State EE Policies in Electricity Demand Forecast

To simulate in AVERT the expected change in demand between 2015 and 2020 and the result of removing these EE policies, EPA began with the amount of fossil-fired generation expected in 2020, as determined in the base case (Ff). EPA then added the amount of increased generation that must be supplied by fossil-fired EGUs in the absence of EE policies (denoted FEE) to the amount of fossil-fired generation expected in the base case:
	Fn = Ff + FEE
This amount of fossil-fired generation (Fn) can be understood as the amount of generation in 2020 that would be required had demand grown without modifications from the implementation of energy efficiency policies. Finally, EPA found the percentage change between fossil generation in 2015 and expected fossil generation in 2020 in the absence of EE programs and policies:
      dn = (Fn - Fo) / Fo
The result of these calculations are the regional growth rates in Table 4.
Table 5. 2020 Regional Electricity Demand Growth with and without EE Policies

                               New England (NE)
                               Great Lakes (EMW)
                                  Texas (TX)
EE Policy
                                   % growth
                                   % growth
                                   % growth
Base Case with "on-the-books" policies in place in 2020 (df)
(Included in the Base Case, as noted in Table 4)
                                    -4.72%
                                    0.64 %
                                     4.55%
Policy Case removing EE policies in NJ, NY, CT and TX in 2020 (dn)
                                     5.48%
                                     1.41%
                                     5.06%

VI. Effect of RE Requirements and RPS Policies
To estimate the potential emissions that would be expected to be emitted if not for states' "on-the-books" RPS policies, EPA developed a second counterfactual policy case that removes the incremental impacts of  current state-level RE requirements in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. EPA also tested the emissions reductions impact that would be expected if Texas doubled its currently "on-the-books" RE requirement. Finally, as described below, EPA also tested the full impacts if these policies had never been implemented at all.
Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York have RPS policies that set forth renewable energy generation goals as a percentage of electric sales in those states. These policies commenced in different years but all were in place by 2015. As a result, some renewable energy generation was required by all three states in 2015. This percentage is denoted as ro. In each of the three states, the percentage of sales that must be met by renewable energy in 2020 (denoted as rf) is higher than that required in 2015. Therefore, it is expected that RE generation will increase to meet these higher standards. In accordance with AVERT's regional allocation scheme, it was assumed that the renewable generation needed to meet each state's RPS is and will continue to be located within the AVERT region(s) containing each state. For example, it was assumed that all of the renewable generation necessary to meet the New York RPS would be located in the Northeast AVERT region and that the renewable generation necessary to meet the New Jersey RPS would be split between the Northeast and Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic AVERT regions according to the apportionment described in Table 3 above. In calculating the amount of renewable generation for this analysis, EPA used the most recent RPS policies that are "on the books" for New Jersey and Connecticut and anticipated an RPS update for New York that is likely to be "on the books" before a reasonable further progress (RFP) ozone SIP submittal.
Texas' RPS is unlike that of the other three states and requires a certain amount of RE capacity (10,000 MW) to be installed by 2025 rather than requiring that a percentage of sales be met by RE generation. The amount of RE capacity installed in Texas in 2015 more than meets this requirement and, as such, it is not expected that any increase in RE generation between 2015 and 2020 will be attributable to the RPS currently "on the books." Therefore, Texas was treated differently than the other states in this counterfactual analysis. Instead of estimating the impact of the RE capacity required by the current RPS, EPA tested the effect of a "what-if" scenario in which Texas amends its RPS to require an additional 10,000 MW of RE capacity by 2020, doubling the current requirement. EPA assumed that all of the additional RE capacity used to meet this requirement would be wind-powered and would be located in ERCOT (which is represented in AVERT as the Texas region).
a. Incremental Effect of RE Requirements and RPS Policies
For all states, the amount by which required RE generation in 2020 is expected to be higher than required RE generation in 2015 is referred to here as the incremental RPS requirement. The entire amount of RE generation required by the RPS policies in 2020, regardless of what was required in 2015, is referred to as the full RPS requirement. Because the incremental RPS requirement implies a smaller amount of RE generation than the full RPS requirement, the emissions savings associated with the incremental RPS requirement (the incremental RPS savings) are smaller than the emissions savings associated with the full RPS requirement (the full RPS savings). As discussed above, for SIP purposes only the incremental savings and RE generation would be used for SIP credit.
In examining the impact of RPS policies in isolation, the amount of RE generation expected under each state's full RPS requirement (Rfull) was calculated as:
	Rfull = rf x Df
where the full amount of RE generation required in 2020 is the product of demand in 2020 (Df) and the percentage of sales that must be met by RE in 2020 (rf).
In order to calculate the amount of RE generation expected to be added under each state's incremental RPS requirement (Rinc), EPA first estimated the amount of RE required by RPS policies in 2015 (Ro) as the product of the RPS requirement in 2015 (ro) and total demand in 2015 (Do):
      Ro = ro x Do
The incremental RPS requirement (Rinc) was then calculated as the difference between the 2020 requirement (Rfull) and 2015 requirement:
	Rinc = Rfull  -  Ro
In New Jersey, the expected amounts of RE generation were apportioned between the Northeast and Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic regions as described above. Expected amounts of renewable generation were translated into equivalent amounts of wind- and solar-powered capacity in two steps. First, the total amount of expected RE generation was apportioned by technology using the regional distribution coefficients found by LBNL/NREL in their retrospective study on RPS compliance. Then, expected wind- and solar-powered generation was converted to an equivalent capacity using AVERT's default capacity factors for these technologies, which vary by region. EPA treated all solar-powered generation in this analysis as utility-scale solar rather than dividing such generation between the utility- and distributed-scale.
Because the incremental RE requirement is expected to be added between 2015 and 2020, incremental RE requirements determined using this methodology were added to a given region in the base case.
In order to test the impact of these incremental RE additions, EPA developed a policy case that adjusted fossil demand to account for expected changes between 2015 and 2020 with EE policies in place (as described in Section IV) but that did not add RE capacity to the system. Without incremental RE, demand on the fossil system is increased, resulting in increased emissions. The impact of incremental RPS requirements was calculated based on the difference in emissions with and without incremental additions of RE. Table 6 presents the expected changes in RE capacity for each region in the base case, reflecting these incremental RE requirements.
b. Full Effect of RE Requirements and RPS Policies
EPA also tested the impact of the full RPS policies in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York by creating a policy case in which fossil generation was increased to supply the entire amount of energy required by RPS policies in 2020. This scenario tests a case in which the full amount of RE required by RPS policies in 2020 (Rfull) was removed from the system and was compared to the base case. Because the base case includes the incremental RE required by RPS policies in 2020, EPA's method of testing the full RPS was to perform a run in which the incremental RE (Rinc) was not added and the amount of RE required in 2015 (Ro) was removed from the system. The difference in RE between the base case and the policy case testing the full RPS requirement (Rfull) is therefore the sum of Rinc and Ro:
      Rfull = Rinc + Ro
EPA assumed that all RE removed from the system would be compensated for by increased generation by fossil-fired EGUs, resulting in increased emissions. Table 5 presents the expected changes in RE capacity for each region in this policy case.
Table 6. 2020 Renewable Energy Capacity Based on State RE Requirements

                                   Northeast
                                     (NE)
                           Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic
                                     (EMW)
                                    Texas
                                     (TX)
Resource Type
                                     Wind
                                     (MW)
                                      PV
                                     (MW)
                                   Wind (MW)
                                      PV
                                     (MW)
                                     Wind
                                     (MW)
                                      PV
                                     (MW)
Incremental amount of renewable energy added between 2015 and 2020 as required by state policies (Rinc)
(Included in the base case, see Table 4)
                                     3,757
                                      764
                                       5
                                     1,840
                                    10,000
                                       -
Full amount of renewable energy required by state policies in 2020 (Rfull)
                                    24,498
                                     2,864
                                      15
                                     5,022
                                       -
                                       -
Amount of renewable energy required by state policies in 2015 removed from system to simulate the full effects of state policies (Ro)
                                    20,741
                                     2,100
                                       9
                                     3,182
                                       -
                                       -
VII. Joint Effects of EE and RE Policies
To estimate the potential emissions that would be expected to be emitted if not for both states' "on-the-books" RPS policies and "on-the-books" EE policies, EPA developed a third counterfactual policy case that removes state-level EE and RE policies. When testing these policies in concert, an adjustment must be made to account for the fact that RPS policies are stated in terms of electricity sales, and electricity sales are expected to be higher in the absence of the savings associated with EE policies.
Similar to the previous policy case, the amount of RE generation needed to satisfy the full RPS requirement in 2020 was calculated as:
	R'full = rf x Dn
In other words, the amount of renewable generation required by the full RPS (R'full) is simply the product of the RPS requirement in 2020 (rf, which is independent of any EE policies) and the amount of demand expected in the absence of EE policies (Fn, as elaborated upon in section 5 above).
As before, the amount of RE generation expected under each state's incremental RPS requirement (Rinc) was calculated as the difference between the full amount of RE generation required by state RPS policies (R'full) and the full amount of RE generation required by state RPS policies in 2015 (Ro):
      R'inc = R'full  -  Ro
The same process outlined in Section VI was used to convert this amount of RE generation into equivalent wind and PV capacity. Table 7 shows the full set of input into AVERT to simulate this policy case.

Table 7. 2020 Electricity Demand Growth and Renewable Energy Capacity Displacement in the Absence of State EE and RE Policies

                                   Northeast
                                     (NE)
                           Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic
                                     (EMW)
                                    Texas
                                     (TX)
EE Policy
RE Policy
                                   % growth
                                   Wind (MW)
                                    PV (MW)
                                   % growth
                                   Wind (MW)
                                    PV (MW)
                                   % growth
                                   Wind (MW)
                                    PV (MW)
Removal of EE policies in NJ, NY, CT and TX in 2020 (dn)
Incremental amount of renewable energy added between 2015 and 2020 as required by state policies (R'inc)
(also included in Table 4)
                                     5.48%
                                     5,289
                                     976
                                     1.41%
                                      7
                                    2,264
                                     5.06%
                                    10,000
                                       -
Removal of EE policies in NJ, NY, CT and TX in 2020 (dn)

Full amount of renewable energy required by state policies in 2020 (R'full)
                                     5.48%
                                    26,030
                                    3,077
                                     1.41%
                                      16
                                    5,445
                                     5.06%
                                       -
                                       -

VIII. Results of Illustrative Counterfactual Analysis
As discussed above, we wanted this analysis to quantify the increase in average daily emissions of NOX that would be expected given the absence of EE/RE programs that are either presently or potentially required by states. Specifically, EPA sought to estimate the average emissions increases that would be expected on the top ten highest temperature days in selected counties that are at risk of nonattainment status for the 2015 ozone standard.
In order to arrive at final results for this analysis, EPA began with hourly, unit-specific NOX outputs from AVERT for each base and policy case for each AVERT region. These outputs represent expected changes in hourly, unit-specific NOX emissions as compared to the 2015 input data. Outputs for all runs were aggregated by county and day to allow EPA to isolate the values for the counties and days of interest. Values obtained from runs on the Northeast AVERT region were summed with those from runs on the Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic region to obtain results for the entire NY/NJ/CT nonattainment area.
Finally, the output of the base case AVERT run was subtracted from outputs of the policy cases AVERT runs. This subtraction allowed the outputs of policy runs to be compared to the 2020 base case. As such, the final results represent the expected emission increases due to the removal of EE/RE policies as compared to the 2020 base case -- a scenario in which "on-the-books" EE/RE policies are kept in place. The final results are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Estimated Expected Increases in Tons of NOX Emitted per Day (on Average for Top Ten Highest Temperature Days) if not for EE and RE Requirements
                                   NY/NJ/CT
         Expected emissions increase in 2020 (tons NOx/day) without...
EE Policies alone
                15.1
Inc. RPS alone
                  3.8
Full RPS alone
                22.5
EE Policies and Inc. RPS
                20.5
EE Policies and Full RPS
                39.8
                                      TX
         Expected emissions increase in 2020 (tons NOx/day) without...
EE Policies alone
                  0.3
Add'l 10 GW Wind alone
                  2.3
EE Policies and Add'l 10 GW Wind
                  2.5

EPA hopes environmental officials find this illustrative analysis to be a useful example of the NOx emission reduction benefits of state-level EE and RE policies as well as the methodology of how to include "on-the-books" programs into ozone RFP and attainment demonstration SIPs.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19055-19056]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0028; Notice 1]

Morgan Olson, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Morgan Olson, LLC (Morgan Olson) \1\ has determined that
certain model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 Morgan Olson walk-in van-type
trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 4,536 kg and
manufactured between September 1, 2009, and January 18, 2012, do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.
Morgan Olson has filed an appropriate report dated January 19, 2012,
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Morgan Olson, LLC, is manufacturer of motor vehicles and is
registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Morgan Olson submitted a petition for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Morgan Olson's petition is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
    Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 6430 Morgan Olson
model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 walk-in van-type trucks having a GVWR
over 4,536 kg and manufactured between September 1, 2009 and January
18, 2012.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the subject 6430 \2\ model year 2009, 2010, and 2011
trucks that Morgan Olson no longer controlled at the time it determined
that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Morgan Olson's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Morgan Olson as a vehicle
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49
CFR part 573 for the 6430 affected vehicles. However, a decision on
this petition cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant
vehicles under their control after Morgan Olson notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noncompliance: Morgan Olson explains that the noncompliance is that
the affected vehicles do not contain a primary door latch system or
door closure warning system as prescribed by paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS
No. 206. As a result of an erroneous interpretation as to the scope of
FMVSS No. 206's application, Morgan Olson mistakenly believed that the
requirement for either a primary door latch system or door closure
warning system applied only to its vehicles having a GVWR under 4,536
kg.
    Morgan Olson explains that the latch systems in the noncompliant
vehicles do not meet the standard of a primary door latch, because
these latch systems do not have a secondary latched position. Nor are
these vehicles equipped with a door closure warning system.
    Rule text: Paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206 requires in pertinent
part:

    S4.2 Sliding Side Doors.
    S4.2.1 Latch System. Each sliding door system shall be equipped
with either:
    (a) At least one primary door latch system, or
    (b) A door latch system with a fully latched position and a door
closure warning system. The door closure warning system shall be
located where it can be clearly seen by the driver. Upon
certification a manufacturer may not thereafter alter the
designation of a primary latch. Each manufacturer shall, upon
request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
provide information regarding such designation * * *

Summary of Morgan Olson's Analysis and Arguments

    In describing the operation of the affected doors Morgan Olson
explained that when the sliding door is closed but not latched, there
is a \1/2\ inch gap between the door and its frame. Thus the rubber
seal in the door jam as well as the exterior paint are clearly visible.
When the door is latched, none of this is visible.
    Morgan Olson stated that its customers are delivery and like
companies whose drivers are trained commercial drivers. A trained
commercial driver, such as one driving a walk-in van manufactured by
Morgan Olson, would immediately notice this gap and realize that the
door is not latched.
    Morgan Olson also stated its belief that even if the driver did not
notice that the door was not latched by means of observing the \1/2\
inch gap, the door would slowly begin to slide open as the vehicle
began to accelerate, which a driver would certainly notice.
Accordingly, if the sliding door is not latched, this would be apparent
to the driver as soon as he accelerates.
    In addition, Morgan Olson stated its belief that this noncompliance
in walk-in van type vehicles is distinguishable from the primary focus
of FMVSS No. 206 sliding door standards. In adopting the standards,
NHTSA noted a particular concern with sliding door failures in
passenger vans, which often contain children in the back seat(s).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 72 FR 5385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Morgan Olson argued that with passenger vans, the sliding doors are
situated behind the driver and therefore out of the driver's line of
sight. And, that this is not true for subject trucks that are used for
commercial purposes and driven by commercial drivers without
passengers.
    In summation, Morgan Olson believes that the described
noncompliance of its vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120,
should be granted.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: By logging on to the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.

Comments may also be faxed to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment Closing Date: April 30, 2012.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 23, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-7591 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Michael Catanzaro/ DC/ USEPA/ US 07/ 26/ 2006 08: 32 AM T o Jason Burnett/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c martella. roger@ epa. gov, thompson. chet@ epa. gov S u b j e c t  Forwarded by Michael Catanzaro/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 07/ 26/ 2006 08: 32 AM

" Johnston, A. Todd" < ajohnston@ nma. org>

06/ 14/ 2006 10: 43 AM T o Michael Catanzaro/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c S u b j e c t Mike   This is in response to your question concerning the impacts of EPA's proposal. The analysis is a little rough, but does provide a good snapshot of the potential impacts of a PMc standard on Western PMc sources. Let me know if you have any questions on this.

A. Todd Johnston Director of Air Quality National Mining Association 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20001 202 463 2668 ajohnston@ nma. org


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33048-33049]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-15-AD;
Amendment 39-17831; AD 2008-21-07R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dowty Propellers Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising airworthiness directive (AD) 2008-21-07 for
certain Dowty Propellers model R408/6-123-F/17 propellers. AD 2008-21-
07 required initial and repetitive inspections of the blade bonded
metallic leading edge (L/E) guards for correct bonding until they
accumulate more than 1,200 flight hours (FH) time-in-service. This AD
requires the same inspection and replacement requirements of AD 2008-
21-07. This AD also provides an optional terminating action to those
requirements. This AD was prompted by updated service bulletins that
identify terminating action to the requirements of AD 2008-21-07. We
are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of the bonded metallic L/E
guard of the propeller, which could result in damage to the propeller
or to the airplane, or injury to personnel.

DATES: This AD is effective July 15, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 15,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
October 31, 2008 (73 FR 61346, October 16, 2008).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Dowty
Propellers, Anson Business Park, Cheltenham Road East, Gloucester GL2
9QN, UK; phone: 44 (0) 1452 716000; fax: 44 (0) 1452 716001. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2008-
1088; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

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

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to revise AD 2008-21-07, Amendment 39-15691 (73 FR 61346,
October 16, 2008), (``AD 2008-21-07''). AD 2008-21-07 applied to the
specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78290). The NPRM proposed to continue to
require the inspection and replacement requirements of AD 2008-21-07
and provide an optional terminating action to those requirements.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 78290, December 26,
2013). Since we issued the NPRM we received information that propeller
blade, part number (P/N) 697071278-18, has not been implemented and
that no parts were manufactured using this P/N. We removed propeller
blade, P/N 697071278-18, from this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 174 propellers installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4
hours per propeller to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per hour. Required parts cost about $352 per propeller. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to U.S. operators is
$120,408.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order

13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2008-21-07, Amendment 39-15691 (73 FR 61346, October 16, 2008), and
adding the following new AD:

AD 2008-21-07R1 Dowty Propellers Propellers: Amendment 39-17831;
Docket No. FAA-2008-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-15-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 15, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2008-21-07, Amendment 39-15691 (73 FR 61346,
October 16, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dowty Propellers model R408/6-123-F/17
propellers with blades, part numbers 697071200-18, 697071210-18,
697071227-18, 697071240-18, 697071245-18, or 697071257-18,
installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by updated service bulletins that identify
terminating action to the requirements of AD 2008-21-07 (73 FR
61346, October 16, 2008). We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss
of the bonded metallic leading edge (L/E) guard of the propeller,
which could result in damage to the propeller or to the airplane, or
injury to personnel.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within the next 50 flight hours (FH) or within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect all
affected blade assemblies where the bonded metallic L/E guard has
accumulated 1,200 FH time-in-service or less since installation, in
accordance with the instructions of Dowty Propellers Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. D8400-61-A69, Revision 1, dated September 18,
2007.
    (2) Within 50 FH or 30 days, whichever occurs first, after
installing a replacement blade, inspect the affected blade assembly
where the bonded metallic L/E guard has accumulated 1,200 FH time-
in-service or less since installation, in accordance with the
instructions of Dowty Propellers ASB No. D8400-61-A69, Revision 1,
dated September 18, 2007.
    (3) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 FH, repeat the
inspection of the affected blade assemblies in accordance with the
instructions of Dowty Propellers ASB No. D8400-61-A69, Revision 1,
dated September 18, 2007, until the blade bonded metallic L/E guard
has accumulated more than 1,200 FH time-in-service since
installation.
    (4) If, during any of the inspections required by this AD,
disbonding is found, apply the criteria in Appendix A of Dowty
Propellers ASB No. D8400-61-A69, Revision 1, dated September 18,
2007 and, within the associated time period, repair or replace the
affected blade assembly in accordance with Dowty Propellers ASB No.
D8400-61-A69, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2007.
    (5) Blades that were repaired within the first 101.6 mm (4.0
inches) of the tip of the blade as specified in Appendix D of Dowty
Propellers ASB No. D8400-61-A69, Revision 1, dated September 18,
2007, are eligible to continue in service for another 500 FH after
accomplishment of the repair. Repair does not terminate the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD.

(f) Optional Terminating Action

    As optional terminating action to the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD, modify the affected
propeller using Dowty Propellers Service Bulletin (SB) No. D8400-61-
70, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2013, or SB No. D8400-61-83, Revision
4, dated June 3, 2013, as applicable.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Schwetz,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-
0223R4, dated September 30, 2013, for more information. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2008-1088-0006.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 15, 2014.
    (i) Dowty Propellers Service Bulletin (SB) No. D8400-61-70,
Revision 3, dated June 3, 2013.
    (ii) Dowty Propellers SB No. D8400-61-83, Revision 4, dated June
3, 2013.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 31, 2008, 73 FR 61346, October 16, 2008.
    (i) Dowty Propellers Alert Service Bulletin No. D8400-61-A69,
Revision 1, including Appendices A and D, dated September 18, 2007;
and Appendices B and C dated August 15, 2007.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Dowty Propellers service information identified in this
AD, contact Dowty Propellers, Anson Business Park, Cheltenham Road
East, Gloucester GL2 9QN, UK; phone: 44 (0) 1452 716000; fax: 44 (0)
1452 716001.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 15, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12266 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


FOR THE CHLORFLURENOL DOCKET: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0874

Chlorflurenol Meeting with EPA/OPP staff and Mr. Bhushan Mandava, agent
for Repar Corporation (the sole registrant of chlorflurenol)

Attendees

Bhushan Mandava, Mandava Associates, agent for Repar Corporation

Michael Farrow, Mandava Associates

Tracy Perry  EPA/OPP/SRRD

Eric Olson EPA/OPP/SRRD

Shanna Recore EPA/OPP/HED

Yvonne Barnes EPA/OPP/HED

Bill  Hazel EPA/OPP/HED

David Anderson  EPA/OPP/HED

Juanita Gilchrist  EPA/OPP/RD

Jim Thompkins  EPA/OPP/RD

Jean Holmes  EPA/OPP/EFED

Allen Vaughan  EPA/OPP/EFED

Ron Parker  EPA/OPP/EFED

Larry Liu   EPA/OPP/EFED

Sunil Ratnayake  EPA/OPP/BEAD

Jenna Carter  EPA/OPP/BEAD

Participants via teleconference

Calvin Oda  Maui Ag Tech, LLC, representing the pineapple growers of
Hawaii

Summary of Meeting

The Chlorflurenol RED team met with Mr. Bhushan Mandava, agent for Repar
Corporation, on December 13, 2006 to discuss the reregistration of
chlorflurenol.

Mr. Calvin Oda of Maui Ag Tech, representing the pineapple growers of
Hawaii, participated in the meeting by phone.  Mr. Mandava reviewed some
of the regulatory history of chlorflurenol and commented on the low
volume/minor use of this herbicide, points he would like the Agency to
consider in making its reregistration eligibility decision.  He also
submitted some documents regarding the low volume/minor use
classification of chlorflurenol, which will be added to the Phase 3
public docket.  Mr. Mandava and Mr. Oda will be submitting more
comments/data to the docket before the comment period closes on January
2, 2007.  Mr. Oda also agreed to have his October 26 letter to the
Agency, concerning the importance of chlorflurenol to pineapple
production in Hawaii, added to the docket.  The projected completion
date for this RED (end of February 2007) was confirmed.

Attachments:

December 13, 2006 Meeting agenda

Documents submitted by Mr. Mandava for the record during the Dec. 13
meeting (to be added to the chlorflurenol public docket)

Low Volume Minor Use Waiver Request for Chlorflurenol Methyl Ester, Nita
Industries, Inc., March 31, 1991

2/7/1994 letter from Jay Ellenberger/ SRRD to Mr. Mandava regarding a
“Request for extension of time to complete the product chemistry,
toxicity, environmental fate and ecological effects studies for
chlorflurenol, case 2095.”

Table 1: Data requirements for Reregistration of Chlorflurenol under Low
Volume/Minor Use Exemption

2/22/1993 letter from Mr. Mandava, agent for Nita Industries, Inc., to
Ruby Whiters/SRRD regarding, “Reregistration Phase IV – Data Call-In
Notice


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5932-5934]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01746]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96744; File No. SR-BOX-2023-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Limited Liability Company Agreement, in Connection With the
Name Change of Unit Holder and Make Conforming Changes to the Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Its Facility BOX
Market LLC

January 24, 2023.
    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 January 11, 2023, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') 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 the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Limited Liability
Company Agreement (the ``Exchange LLC Agreement''), in connection with
the name change of Unit Holder. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to make
conforming changes to the Amended and Restated Limited Liability
Company Agreement of its facility BOX Market LLC Agreement (the
``Market LLC Agreement''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at https://rules.boxexchange.com/rulefilings.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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
    The purpose of this filing is to reflect in the Exchange's
governing documents changes to the corporate structure of an Exchange
Unit Holder--MX US 2, Inc. (``MX US 2''). Specifically, on December 15,
2022, MX US 2 Inc. converted from a Delaware Corporation to a Delaware
Limited Liability Company and is now known as MX US 2 LLC. The Exchange
intends for these changes to be effective upon filing.
    As proposed, all references to MX US 2, Inc. will be deleted and
revised to state the new name, MX US 2 LLC. No other substantive
changes are being proposed in this filing. The Exchange represents that
these changes are concerned solely with the administration of the
Exchange and do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement
of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges
of Exchange members or their associated persons is any way.
Accordingly, this filing is being submitted under Rule 19b-4(f)(3).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and section
6(b)(5) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the section 6(b)(1) \5\ in that it
enables the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and to comply, and
to enforce compliance by its exchange members and persons associate
with its exchange members, with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the
rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed change is a non-substantive change and
does not impact the governance, ownership or operations of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that by ensuring that the Exchange and
Market LLC Agreements accurately reflect the new legal name of a Unit
Holder, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or
market participant confusion.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the changes to the Exchange and
Market LLC Agreements would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because the
change would accurately reflect the new legal name of a Unit Holder,
thereby reducing potential confusion.

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

    The Exchange 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. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with updating the Exchange and Market LLC Agreements documents
to reflect the change in name of a Unit Holder.

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

    The Exchange has 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: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \7\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange requested
the waiver because the proposed change seeks to accurately reflect the
new legal name of a Unit Holder which could, in turn, reduce any
potential investor confusion. For this reason, and because the proposed
rule change does not raise any novel regulatory issues, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2023-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2023-04. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2023-04 and should be submitted on
or before February 21, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01746 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28227-28228]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12942]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-10-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-921); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data
from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators) and submitting the information collection to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. On April 4, 2018, the Commission
published a Notice in the Federal Register in Docket No. IC18-10-000
requesting public comments. The Commission received comments from one
commenter, a subject respondent, who expressed clear support for the
extension request.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due July 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0257, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC18-10-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: 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 protected], 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 protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-921, Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-921 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The collection of data in the FERC-921 is an effort by
the Commission to detect potential anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior or ineffective market rules by requiring Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to
electronically submit, on a continuous basis, data relating to physical
and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal
cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal
bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Individual
datasets that the Commission is requesting may be produced or retained
by the market monitoring units (MMUs). The Commission directed each RTO
and ISO either to: (1) Request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO
or ISO can deliver such data to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU
to deliver such data directly to the Commission. All data for this
collection has (and is expected to continue to) come from each RTO or
ISO and not the MMUs. Therefore, any associated burden is counted as
burden on RTO and ISO.
    Each RTO or ISO may make changes to their individual markets with
Commission approval. Each RTO or ISO may also change the data being
sent to the Commission to ensure compliance with Order No. 760. Such
changes typically require respondents to alter the ongoing delivery of
data under FERC-921. For this reason, the burden estimate has been
updated to reflect the incremental burden associated with such changes.
The burden associated with a changes varies considerably based on the
significance of the specific change, therefore, the estimate reflects
the incremental burden for an average change. Based on historical
patterns of change, staff estimates there to be about one and a half
changes per RTO or ISO per year.
    Public Comments on 60-day Notice and FERC Response: The Commission
received comments from one commenter who is also a subject respondent,
the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. They wrote: ``The
Commission should continue to require the ongoing delivery of data in
the same manner that the data is currently delivered, in accordance
with FERC Order No. 760 and FERC-921.'' This comment clearly supports
the Commission's request to extend the information collection without
change.
    Type of Respondents: Regional transmission organizations and
independent system operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the average
annual burden and cost \2\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Refer to
5 CFR 1320.3 for additional information.
    \2\ Costs (for wages and benefits) are based on wage figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for May 2016 (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits information (for
December 2017, issued March 20, 2018, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).

                                                                        FERC-921
                     [Ongoing electronic delivery of data from regional transmission organizations and independent system operators]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                                                                       Annual cost
               Category                   Number of     of responses    Total number    Average burden and cost    Total annual burden    per respondent
                                         respondents   per respondent   of responses         per response             hours and cost            ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing electronic delivery of data..               6               1           \3\ 6  52 hrs.; $2,460 \4\.....  312 hrs.; $14,758......          $2,460
Changes to the delivered data made by               6               1           \5\ 6  480 hrs.; $37,848 \6\...  2,880 hrs.; $227,088...          37,848
 the RTO/ISO.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................               6               2              12  532 hrs.; $40,308.......  3,192 hrs.; $241,846...          40,308
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ Each RTO/ISO electronically submits data daily. To match
with past filings, we are considering the collection of daily
responses to be a single response per respondent each year.
    \4\ The ongoing electronic delivery of data requires a computer
support specialist (code 15-1150), at an hourly cost (wages plus
benefits) of $47.30 (rounded).
    \5\ Each RTO/ISO is estimated to make one and a half changes
yearly. To be consistent with the formulation that the submissions
over the course of a year constitute a single response and for the
purpose of this calculation, we are assuming that each response
requires one and a half changes over the course of the year and
estimating burden accordingly.
    \6\ Changes to the delivered data require a database
administrator (code 15-1141), legal review (code 23-0000), and
executive review (code 11-1000). The hourly costs (wages plus
benefits) are $65.07, $143.68, and $96.68, respectively. We weighted
the hourly cost figure to account for the fraction of time for each
skill set per response, and used an estimate of \3/4\, \1/8\, and
\1/8\ respectively. We used the following formula for the weighted
hourly cost figure: $65.07 (0.75) + $143.68 (0.125) + $96.68 (0.125)
= $78.85 (rounded).
    We estimate the total time required per change to be 320 hours.
Because a response encompasses one year where there are, on average,
1.5 changes, the total time per response is 480 hours (1.5 * 320
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: June 11, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12942 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71065]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-285-000]

Sigurd 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 Sigurd 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 November 23, 2020.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 2, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24704 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30612]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0238]

Consolidation of Redundant Coast Guard Boat Stations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are requesting your comments on the planned consolidation
of redundant Coast Guard boat stations. Many stations were established
at a time when boats lacked engines and were powered by oars and
paddles. With modern boat operating speeds and improved direction
finding technology, many calls for Coast Guard assistance can be
responded to by multiple units significantly faster than when these
boat stations were first established. The combination of significantly
improved response times, along with an overall reduction in rescue
calls due to boating safety improvements throughout the nation, has
resulted in a number of boat stations becoming redundant. This
consolidation will result in a more robust response system by
increasing staffing levels and capacity at select nearby boat stations.
Such a consolidation creates synergy and more opportunities for boat
operators to properly train instead of missing training opportunities
while standing ready to respond to calls that do not come.

DATES: Written comments and related material may be submitted to the
Coast Guard personnel specified below. Your comments and related
material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0238 using the Federal rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
please call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces,
202-372-2463<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
GAO Government Accountability Office

II. Background and Purpose

    In October of 2017, the GAO issued report GAO-18-9, titled
``Actions Needed to Close Stations Identified as Overlapping and
Unnecessarily Duplicative.'' This GAO report, a copy of which is in the
docket for this notice, recommends the consolidation of 18 boat
stations. Due to environmental and operational factors, the Coast Guard
is not considering all 18 boat stations identified in the GAO report
for consolidation this year. Instead, we anticipate consolidating four
stations, with implementation notionally scheduled for fiscal year
2022. These stations have been identified because there are other units
nearby capable of responding to cases in these areas, and because these
four stations respond to a low number of cases. We do not anticipate
any adverse effect on Coast Guard response capability. We expect
enhanced proficiency of boat operators as well as a less complicated
response system.

III. Discussion

    The following seasonal stations, Stations-Small Scituate, MA;
Holland, MI; North Superior, MN; and Beach Haven, NJ; have been
identified for consolidation with neighboring stations. These are
seasonal stations are detached subunits of larger parent stations.
    This consolidation is expected to result in a more robust response
system by increasing staffing levels and capacity at select nearby boat
stations. Such a consolidation creates synergy and more opportunities
for boat operators to properly train.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. In your submission, please include the docket number for
this notice and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We will review all comments received, but we may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions.

John W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Capability.
[FR Doc. 2021-12105 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P